Letter to the Editor Supports Sexually Harassed Librarians

Here's a published letter to the editor supporting sexually harassed librarians, "Neither patrons nor library employees should be forced to suffer with sexual activity of any kind in the OPPL," and urging new library trustees to take action to protect them from further harassment:

3 Steps to Fixing the OPPL

Dear Editor,

There are three simple steps that the Orland Park Public Library Board of Trustees can take to make the library a safer place for children and families and fix the problems I have observed in this library in recent years.

First, the OPPL needs to install filters on its adult computers to block child pornography and other illegal content from being accessed and to prevent men from arousing themselves sexually in the adult computer area.  Neither patrons nor library employees should be forced to suffer with sexual activity of any kind in the OPPL.

Libraries such as those in Niles and Lemont have successfully eliminated this problem by blocking such sites on public computers.

A library is a taxpayer-funded facility for education and learning, and not a place for sexual activity of any kind.

Second, the OPPL should turn back to its mission statement and eliminate its outrageous food and jewelry purchases for staff.  Nowhere in the library's charter or mission statement does it state that the OPPL should be using taxpayer money to buy expensive treats or gifts for employees.  Yet, the OPPL maintains active purchasing accounts at the Orland Park Bakery and Noral Diamond Jewelers that provide no public benefit and should be immediately closed.  It is inexcusable to squander public money on expensive pastries and jewelry store purchases for highly-paid OPPL staffers who can afford to buy their own paczki and crystal bookends.

Third, the library's trustees need to come clean with the public about why police were not called when their own internal incident report shows that three witnesses reported to library staff that child porn was accessed in the OPPL.  The board has admitted that Library Director Mary Weimar did not call the police as she was required to do by their own policy.  This is especially troubling, because it appears that Weimar received no disciplinary action for this poor judgment and, in fact, was awarded raises that have brought her compensation package to $189,000 per year.  The woman who did not call the police when child porn was accessed in the OPPL is, thus, paid more than Orland Police Chief Tim McCarthy.

I have a problem with that and believe management and other personnel changes are needed to remedy ongoing safety and spending problems in the OPPL.  I urge the two new incoming trustees to take the three steps outlined above as soon as possible.

Megan Fox

Source:  "Letters to the Editor April 2, 2015," by Editor, Orland Park Prairie, 2 April 2015.  Republished with permission of Story Time Digital Media.

URL of this page:

librarians.cc/2015/04/letter.html

Are Affluent Libraries More Dangerous Than Poor Libraries?

Here's an interesting question for you to ponder: are libraries in affluent areas (suburbs) more dangerous than libraries in poor areas (disadvantaged urban)?

One trend I've noticed while researching and auditing the incident reports in Illinois libraries for the last two years is that libraries in affluent areas seem to have more problems with incidents of sexual activity, masturbation, child pornography being accessed, and sexually hostile work environments than libraries that are in poor areas without a lot of money.

I have formed a theory that goes something like this:

* Wealthy communities have more funds than they know what to do with, so they pay library management ridiculously large salaries. Example: Orland Park (an affluent southwestern suburb of Chicago) has a library director who makes $189,000/year. That is more than the governor of Illinois is paid. A poor community could never afford to pay a director a salary of $189,000/year. The poor communities have directors who make $60,000/year or so.

* The directors who command salaries like $189,000/year are likely to be radical leftists who toe the ALA's line. These are typically white women who are Baby Boomers and who believe their real mission as a director is to be involved in the ALA's political agenda to "transform communities by transforming libraries". These radicals only seek the highly paid positions…so libraries offering huge salaries for directors end up with one of these rich, white, radical leftist women as a director.

* Poor libraries can't afford one of the rich, white, radical leftist women as a director…and the people who will work for $60,000/year are not people who seem themselves as committed leftists. The people who work for $60,000 can't afford to be so committed to the ALA's political agenda and perhaps they don't see any value to them or their communities to listen to the ALA. There's also a more diverse pool of talent at this level, where the directors are not all white, leftist women. Black library directors exist at the $60,000/year level and it's been my experience that the black and other minority library directors and staff do not tolerate any sexual misconduct or abuse in their libraries. It's only the white, rich, radical leftists who take pride in looking the other way when illegal activity occurs in their libraries. Minority directors DO NOT seem to believe it is part of their mission to allow this garbage to keep happening.

* The affluent communities end up with directors who feel they prove they are enlightened for looking the other way when illegal activity occurs in their libraries, because they want to be so "enlightened" that they allow sexual activity in their libraries as proof that they are not "judging" the people who are using the library as a place for sex. The poor communities in contrast get directors who don't put up with any of this garbage and instead view the people having sex in libraries and doing other illegal things as a problem they want to stamp out.

Has anyone else noticed this?

Do you see how the affluent suburbs acquire radical leftists who want to make some sort of demented point by allowing crimes to be committed, because they feel they prove they are "enlightened" for not wanting to judge the people committing the crimes?

Do you see how the poorer communities are blessed to have directors who have a zero tolerance for crime in their libraries, since these directors do not have the idle free time and the hubris that comes with sky-high salaries (which alienates the rich, white leftists from reality)?

My working theory is that the suburbs end up having more instances of child pornography being accessed, masturbation occurring, and sexual activity in their libraries than the poor urban libraries have and this is all a direct result of the suburban libraries hiring the ALA's "cream of the crop" directors.

Employing ALA acolytes in library management positions has the consequence of creating libraries that allow sex crimes to occur and dangers to children to multiply.

My suggestion is to keep library director salary at around $60,000/year, then maybe the rich, white, leftists who occupy the $189,000/year positions will no longer want to work in libraries—and the negative influence that these women have on communities will be eliminated.

Thoughts?

URL of this page:

librarians.cc/2015/02/are-affluent-libraries-more-dangerous.html