The design is very bad so that the public is not well accommodated even to attend AADL or AAATA meetings.

The room is quite large and is outfitted for CTN broadcast. With a better design, it could be available for large public meetings where information could be screened and events broadcast.

This is SO not helpful..

We should all attend a movie presentation in the multipurpose room to assess whether the room design bothers me as much as it does the two of you. If the heads of the seated audience obstructs the projection perhaps the projector could be aimed higher.

The library should not be a professional theater with stadium seating and professional audio equipment, such exist elsewhere in Ann Arbor. If needed larger viewing venues exist as auditoriums at many Ann Arbor Pubic Schools which likely can be reserved without cost and with available free parking.

Even though I am 6′ tall, I could not see sufficiently over the 10 rows ahead of me. Throughout most of the feature length movie I leaned sideways into the aisle. I saw others visibly struggling to see at times, especially whenever text was presented at the bottom of the screen. And this wasn’t even a subtitled movie.

The AADL’s programming was excellent. This was the MI premiere of a fascinating film with one of the main theorists in attendance for Q&A. Yet again, it was one of the most physically uncomfortable settings I’ve attended for a screening in recent years.

My comment was not intended as a personal complaint, however, but to point out the importance of quality considerations in discussions about the needs of our library system as we move forward. The numbers are important, but so is the experience we’re providing people in our community.

I checked out the room and found it with rows of chairs in preparation for viewing a movie. The projection screen was retracted into its receptacle suspended near the ceiling. When the screen is fully lowered to accommodate projections, the screen remained above the heads of seated viewers, presenting no obstructions.

I can not explain Mr. Harrison’s poor experience.

Please visit the multiuse room to confirm the setup for yoursel

The next library board election is in November, 2014. The best way to change policy at the library is to elect a new board.

12-19-12 Parker’s first email to Gagne after initial meeting with him includes links to ournewlibrary.com, protectourlibraries.org, and aadl building projects page.

12-19-12 and 12-20-12 emails between Parker, Leary, and Rosenthal include description of conversation with Gagne having discussed “why it failed,” “our chances of success,” “orchestrate and time (the hiring of one or more consulting groups) carefully,” “he suggested that we need a two year lead up to another vote.”

1-14-13 Gagne sends references: “We have helped their clients pass millions in bonds.” “We worked with their campaign team this last November.” “With our help they were successful in passing their last two issues and overcoming their opposition.” “We worked with them both from a district end and a campaign end to pass a bond.”

2-20-13 Gagne makes presentation at Facilities Committee meeting.

3-13-13: Parker emails linked article to Gagne: “Just something interesting I found. I followed their campaign and they also had opposition.”

4-13-13 Rosenthal email: “As chairs of Facilities and Finance I would like to ask you to join me” to meet with A-H.

Allerton Hill proposal: “Offer high quality, long-term strategic messaging and targeting so that AADL is successful in its public initiatives”

Allerton-Hill Business Briefing: “helped win BILLIONS” in local funding campaigns.

Allerton-Hill case studies all mention ballot issues, 2/3 regarding A-H’s role in changing a lost issue into a won issue.

And if there is any question about the library board’s methods and intentions, previous paid consultant Dave Waymire told Parker on 3-12-12:

“we need to create the problem before we solve the problem.”

“…[the firm] has a track record of working on campaigns that have resulted in hundreds of millions of additional dollars in public investments.”

Prof. Schafer makes this sound like a good thing. Another way of describing the firm’s work is to persuade taxpayers to part with very substantial sums of their money. (Allerton-Hill.com)