e-Portfolio Home :: Competencies :: Vlasta Home

competency A

competency B

competency C

competency D

competency E

competency F

competency G

competency H

competency I

competency J

competency K

competency L

competency M

competency N

Evidence 2 of Competency M

Which demonstrates my writing skills in the context of a larger group project. The following text is just one of a number of other documents created for the mock trial, one of projects for Information and Society class, Spring of 2005. Other documents included various charts the showing budget structure of a branch library, collection policies, interview scenarios with the branch Board members, patrons, and other documentation necessary for the defense of the case. All documents were prepared in coordination with my "defense" team member and with the knowledge of the "lawyer" arguing the case for the plaintiffs' side.

---

Rosario vs. Burton Public Library

According to the case scenario, The Burton Public Library was founded in 1956 by Reverend Sheldon Burton, a Baptist minister, as a Mecca for those with “high moral values and beliefs”. Upon his death in 1983, he left his writings and a large sum of money to the Burton Public Library. These funds gave the library the opportunity to build a new wing and purchase $550,000 worth of books.  Most of the money for the books went for religious or Christian materials. Since most of its funding comes from the Burton estate, the library receives minimal funding from the city, state and county. The case against the branch was brought by a couple alleging sexual discrimination by the branch's collection policy.

Closing Argument for the defense

Judge, jury. On Sunday, January 23, 2005 in the afternoon, Ms. Rosario and Ms. Shaw, in Parker City on a business trip, walk into Burton Memorial Public Library to look at some books, and, finding library collection unsatisfactory, approached the librarian on duty, Derek Lawton. They complained about the number of the children gay and lesbian books claiming that the library has "only a few" from many choices that are available on the market. They complained that the books are in the wrong section – they were in young adult section instead in the section for children. They demanded that library immediately change its book placement policies. The library took their complaint, followed their procedures that were developed for that kind of situations. The administrative stuff talked and reached a decision. The Board of Trustees met and reached a decision. In a democratic process, all the forums of democratic decision making decided that they would not change book policies. The plaintiff, instead of accepting the product of democratically reached outcome of their complaint, decided to sidestep this process and try to prove their point in court.

They filed a suit in which they allege that Burton Public Library by their acquisition policies for GAL books and placement of them in adult section are guilty of discrimination, homophobia and intellectual freedom violations.

We showed through the evidence of Collection Development Policies and testimony of the head librarian, Derek Lawton, that the Library and library staff tried to help plaintiffs to find, retrieve or borrow in other library branches books they desired for their child. They refused help.

The plaintiffs were told that there is a reason why this library branch could be less comprehensive on gay and lesbian subject than other branches. However, we found that branch was in no means without gay and lesbian books. They had them, more not less, than an average library in US. That was not what plaintiffs wanted to hear.

Plaintiffs were politely told that, considering the character of the collection, Burton Library patrons tend to be of rather a conservative world view. Considering that they are local taxpayers and regular patrons, they have the interest and the means to get actively involved in shaping of library acquisition policies. It is not surprising that they also get their voice heard in the Board of Trustees.

The plaintiffs accused the library of homophobia just because children gay and lesbian books were not in the children section. Books were never removed from the library, they were not hidden from the patrons in any way, any patron – child or adult – has free access to all public area of the library. Professional help was offered to assist the child, but it was refused, because that was not the point, as the plaintiffs said to the head librarian.

It seems this suit was more about the point than anything else. The point is that every library must carry out the letter of the ALA code of ethics to the last letter of the code. They interpret the ALA code of ethic as the law for which, if you do not follow it, you get punished.

One hundred thousand dollars would be taken from public services accessible and offered to everybody, regardless to sex, religion or political leaning, and diverted to prove the point of the particular interest group that has the point to prove. Plaintiffs are not interested that other groups will be shortcut by their action. They could participate in democratic process as all other citizens of Parker City, campaign, get themselves or representatives that will represent their interests elected into the Library Board of Trustees and try to influence decision making process. However, they chose to sue.

They never considered that the ALA code of ethics and the Bill of Rights are ideal conditions, toward which each library should try to strive, but it is not box in which everybody MUST fit. Librarians serve a variety of communities and they themselves have different ideas what libraries should do with their taxpayers' money. In California, a library was sued for not using filtered computers. In Virginia, a library was sued for using filtered computers. The First Amendment right of access must be balanced with other rights within the library, and librarians through their policies are the ones who must create and enforce this very difficult balancing act.

Burton Memorial Library tried to ensure that gay and lesbian books remain in the library, regardless of the pressure of the conservative majority. They reached a compromise inside the community, through the Board of Trustee with which all could live. The solutions may be not the ultimate ideal of the First Amendment; however it ensured that uninterrupted service of the library and satisfaction of the patrons.

We also ask that the court dismiss the claim for punitive damages. The library or library staff acted respectfully and professionally when dealing with issues brought up by the plaintiffs. The library followed its policies, which are within the standards of the profession. The policies, that the plaintiffs find offensive were determined in an open and transparent process and do not interfere with plaintiffs' freedom of access. Book was freely accessible. No request was put upon the plaintiffs in order to obtain them.

Besides all this, punitive damages would seriously disrupt library services punishing the whole community indiscriminately in the process. And on top of that, books that the plaintiff claims she would buy, would not necessarily be accepted into the collection just because they are donated to the library, as we heard from the testimony of the head librarian.

We ask the court and jury to dismiss this suit as frivolous because the plaintiffs did not prove that acquisition policies for gay and lesbian books differ in any way from acquisition policies for any other subject matter. The number of the books in the library is within the average number of these books in libraries in US. The placement of the books does not show any homophobic or discriminatory action of the library toward the plaintiff. And the books were in the library, their context was not censored – so there is no reason for the accusation of any intellectual freedom violation.