Letter to the Editor: Interesting Contrasts in Morton Grove Library Trustee Candidate Forums

I had the opportunity to attend both of the candidate forums for the Morton Grove Library trustees. The fact that I had to take time to deal with my income tax preparation gave me a couple of days to reflect on what I had seen and heard filtered through the information provided by a Freedom of Information request I had made to the library earlier this month.

The first forum I attended was held at the Morton Grove Civic Center. It featured the self-styled "BPAC" group that is challenging the incumbent crew of trustees only as the incumbent self-styled "Pro-Library" group was not there.

The 7:30 start time came and went before the BPAC group, deciding that the other side wasn't going to show, started. The first announcement, by Mark Albers, one of the candidates, was that the forum was to be a free-form affair, where any member of the audience could ask any question and the candidates would do their best to answer it. What followed was about an hour and a half of questions regarding why the candidates were running; how they would govern the library differently from the current group and what they believed about a new library building.

What I took away from attending this forum was that these four candidates were most concerned about balancing the need to maintain the current great Morton Grove library service with the real need to husband the tax dollars that paid for those services. They struck me as sincere in their concern for both the library and the library patrons.

The second forum I attended was held at the Morton Grove Library. It was a much slicker production, with a moderator from the Union League Club of Chicago and formal rules of protocol regarding how questions would be presented and how questions would be answered. Questions were written by audience members on index cards and then presented to the moderator. It was he who decided what questions would be asked, and further, he paraphrased questions rather that read what the audience members had written. It was a smooth performance, clean, tidy and orderly. What I took away from this forum was that the candidates loved their mothers; were warm and fuzzy people; loved kitty cats and puppy dogs and believed that although a new library was an absolute necessity, that now was not the time to hold an advisory referendum.

Perhaps I had a bit of a jaundiced view of the way the questions were handled, because I had spent the afternoon prior to the forum perusing, among other things, a recommended plan of action that had been provided by a consulting firm; Ehlers, Inc. of Lisle, IL.

The Ehlers original proposal, dated July 9, 2010, was to provide different services to the library board of trustees. The first was financial services to develop a financial plan and supervise a bond issue. Their fee for this was to be $9,425 plus 1/4 of 1% of the value of bonds issued.
The second service was to provide Public Participation Process and Communication Services which was to be subdivided into three phases; 1) To develop a question and answer fact sheet; news releases; newsletter articles; information for the library web site and talking points for a fee of $9,225. The second phase was to organize and supervise open house/public information forums at a cost of $7,150 for the 1st event and $5,125 for two subsequent events for a total of $12,275. The third service was to assist the board in organizing a citizen's task force to assist the board with public input sessions at a cost of $11,275. Therefore, all three phases would cost the Morton Grove taxpayers $37,900!

It was then that I realized that the moderator had asked the questions of the candidates almost word-for-word from the talking points provided by Ehlers, Inc.

No wonder the forum was so smooth and tidy! It followed a script that had been bought at taxpayer expense! (FOIA the Ehlers Q&A for full details)

But what about all those public supporters of the library... you know the advisory board?

Quoting from an Ehlers and associates memo of 5/24/10 by Steve Larson to the director and board of trustees:
I suggest the following sequence in contacting potential members of the "Citizen's Input Committee".

1. Each person should suggest 1-3 names...all should be open minded, good listeners and team players. (emphasis mine)
2. The library will provide a master list...
3. We will review the list. Take off anyone you are not comfortable with in serving on the committee. (emphasis mine) Narrow the list down to 10-15 people.
(again, FOIA the Ehlers memo of 5/24/2010 for the full text).

Unfortunately, to me the whole thing smacks of old-style Chicago politics... but then I happen to believe that the people paying the bills should be given a fair shake and given the information necessary to say yes or no before this type of money is spent. Perhaps it it naive to think this way, but this is, after all, Morton Grove.

Officials who take such actions usually do so while standing under the banner of “good government.” They contend that too much openness would unreasonably interfere with government efficiency, or people’s privacy or complicate a lawyer’s work.

Sometimes they’re right. Open government makes for messy government. Democracy is not nearly as tidy as a dictatorship.

I believe that the current board of trustees are good people. Even good people – ones who favor openness in many instances – will defect to the dark side when it hampers their work.

I honestly don't know if the BPAC group will do better than the current crew, but I do know that just like Caesar's wife, the board members need to be beyond reproach. It seems like it is time to roll up the shades, open the windows and let in some light and fresh air.