For my Newburyport readers and friends, and also for anyone who read my accounts of controversy at the Newburyport Public Library last summer, here’s a report on the NPL Board of Directors meeting Wednesday, or at least my futile five minutes worth.
Quotes may be inexact (and possibly out of sequence), but I think I caught the truth of it, and three others present–also in support of the expelled volunteers, the Archival Center, and the head archivist forced to “retire”–concur.
A key to the cast of characters: Sean Reardon is Mayor, and Ed Cameron is Pres. of City Council. Both are ex-officio members; Cameron did not hold that office and so was not on the NPL board when the controversy broke. Full disclosure: He is a guitarist & vocalist for The Pathological Outliers, a local band that I quite favorably reviewed in a blog, “Driving Rock & Roll’s Car,” summer of ’22.
Kevin Bourque is the new library head, and Jessica Atherton his top assistant believed to be one of two “senior” librarians behind the move to gut the Archival Center of volunteers and of the head archivist of ten or twelve years. Board member Jim Connelly, a lawyer, appeared to be the chair, as he was the only one who spoke–save one remark by the mayor–during “public comments.” Andrew Levine (not present) is the mayor’s chief of staff.
———
My Five Minutes
Nothing like a long drive to think long thoughts, and it took one to and back from Meredith, NH, Thursday to make any sense of Wednesday evening.
Looks like the board now has three empty seats, as just seven directors (inc. Reardon & Cameron) and Bourque & Atherton sat at the tables facing nine people.
I went intending to remain silent, unsure of my ability to contain my temper. But when no one answered Connelly’s opening invitation, at least not within a few beats, I announced that I had no comment, but one question. He told me I had five minutes.
To set it up, I repeated the scene of my meeting with Levine on June 27 regarding the 950-word smear, specifically the one line about “accepting money.” I did this in our first meeting on Jan. 30.
I made sure to turn my head from side to side, trying to make eye contact with all of them. Some looked down, some inc. Reardon met my eye.
Then, the question to the board: Were you aware that this was posted on the NPL site for at least three, possibly five weeks, including the money charge even though it was already established that it was nothing more than coins?
Connelly: “I’m pretty sure your five minutes are up.”
Me: “Fine, but that’s the question, where’s the answer?” I looked from side to side. Averted eyes. Blank stares. “It’s a simple yes or no question. Were you aware of it?” I kept lookin, pausing, repeating.
At one point, Reardon answered, addressing me by my first name, which took me by surprise for some reason. He said he asked that it be taken down when he learned of it.
Me: “But three weeks went by after I told your chief of staff about it.”
He said something about info not being conveyed, and I was a bit too stunned to realize that what he said, at least the wording of it, was an admission that he thought something was wrong with the statement. Given another chance, I’d ask him to name who was responsible for it. And exactly what he thought was wrong.
I kept looking at the board members, getting nothing in return, while re-phrasing and expanding the question, “Did you know? Did you approve?” until Connelly (the only one who spoke of the five) repeated: “Your five minutes are up.”
“Did this board know of the post?”
Connelly began to answer with talk of union personnel agreements. I cut in:
“I’m not talking about union contracts. I’m talking about ethics.”
“Well, your five minutes are up.”
I wish I had a white flag with me, or at least a white hankie that I could have held over my head and waved when I sat down. They simply called for the next speaker, and one got up and made a strong, comprehensive, and coherent case for the vols, the Archival Center, and the archivist they had just silently watched forced out.
When she was done speaking, the board looked just as it did when I was done. I do not believe that a single word of what either of us said registered with any of them.
EXCEPT: I think that just the fact of us talking, and the fact of others sitting there, have to be making them uneasy for what might yet come. Put another way, what we saw last night was a group of people who are hoping to wait us out.
Following this, they went to their mundane business. Bourque spoke forever in a sing-song voice that had me wishing I had a package of Excedrin III or a bottle of Jim Beam. Admirably, the other speaker kept an ear on it enough to insert a question about how use of the Archival center is or will be measured. And another took a lot of notes which may or may not include all six times Bourque said “enhance the user’s library experience.”
POSTSCRIPT: Only yesterday did I learn that the camera to record us was something new, never done before. A few tell me that this is a tactic to intimidate and discourage anyone from the public who might be disagreeable. I don’t doubt that assessment, but it’s lost on a Renaissance faire performer of 25 years with an instinct, maybe an involuntary reflex to ham it up at the sight of any such device aimed at me. On the other hand, I do admit I was surprised by it and wished I had gotten a haircut that afternoon.
-30-