[link 1]
[link 2]

…this is placing a $100+ barrier between readers and books. Then forced onto the endless upgrade cycles by the companies that sell them. How many iterations of the iPod have there been in 15 years? Can you even still use your first iPod? Probably not. They also need steady access to internet and electricity to function, another barrier.

Not saying people shouldn’t get their books that way, just saying you should not force everyone to get their reading that way. Imagine that manufacturing and supporting these e-readers may not last past the end of the cheap oil era. Not to mention the impending shortage of the precious metals required AND the environmental implications of their manufacture (which are significant).

But once you destroy the books, they are gone for good. Libraries are one of the last refuges from full dependence on the corporate world. You can still read a book for free thanks to libraries.

Fahrenheit 451? As Bruce Springsteen said, “That stuff is never as far away as you think it is.”

It seems to me that the Library already communicates quite forcefully and often the work it feels should impress the public and which the public should unquestioningly support. What the Library and the Board do much less effectively is actively listen to the public and make it as easy as possible for the public to offer input. Holding Board meetings in branches is a good, if modest, start. Adding a second citizen comment period at the end of Board meetings (as I proposed to the Board in November) would cost nothing and provide the Board and Administration with immediate feedback. It does not require paying a consultant or devising a “communications strategy” to summon up some other common sense ways to convey to the taxpayers a willingness to listen, learn, and heed their concerns. One good brainstorming session, followed by robust discussion of the best options in an open Board meeting, followed by immediate implementation should do it!

I just consulted the minutes of the November 19, 2012 meeting, the last one posted. (There was no December meeting.) These are what are referred to as “action minutes”, barebones reports of actions taken with no discussion reported. The exception was that public comment was reported in full. Thus, without the Chronicle’s coverage, there would be no record of comments and discussion from board members at meetings.

Thank you again for this reporting. It is a real service.

Sorry, Chronicle, if I got any of that wrong. The 2011 meeting coverage is here: [link]

The blue hairs in the wheelhouse of the taxpayer financed AADL flagship believe they are royalty imbued with powers and navigational charts given by heaven.

Pooh pooh, and tut tut. The AATA crowd still tops them for arrogance and gross mismanagement.

And then we have the Augean Stables of the city council and county government to consider.

Who among is up to the cleaning job? Tis better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.

If the Library Board wants the support of the community for future projects, they might want to rethink this failure to understand the value of being more open and transparent. A step in that direction would be to broadcast or tape all future Library Board meetings. The fact them seem to continue to stonewall this easy fix with ‘communications’ being a focus is troubling.

As the story indicates, the reasoning behind the decision not to make board meetings more accessible was never explained. We are left to draw the conclusion that they do not welcome public scrutiny.