March 10, 2004 |
||
|
Extra Andrea
Nemerson's Norman
Solomon's nessie's Tom
Tomorrow's Jerry
Dolezal
Arts and Entertainment Culture Techsploitation
Without
Reservations Cheap
Eats
|
||
|
PLACE A CLASSIFIED AD |PERSONALS | MOVIE CLOCK | REP CLOCK | SEARCH
Opinion
By Sue Cauthen SUP. CHRIS Daly's ordinance creating a citizens' advisory committee for the library should have sailed into the annals of good government by now. But there's a hitch. Honchos at the San Francisco Public Library are busting their bookcases trying to defeat the measure. It is highly unusual for an agency whose hallmark is public service to shudder at the prospect of open, independent, and informed discourse on issues that matter to the folks in the neighborhoods. This in and of itself is clear evidence that a citizens' advisory committee is urgently needed. Other reasons include the squabbles over radio frequency identification (RFID) book locators, library design, and the number of books in our branches. Then there's the dearth of fresh ideas from the sitting Library Commission (Willie Brown appointees all) and the commission's habit of rubber-stamping anything the library administration wants to do. In fairness, the library's practice of producing key background papers at the last minute makes it virtually impossible for the commissioners to make informed decisions in the time available to them. Poor planning and disregard for the results of its own "wish-list" surveys have backed the SFPL into a corner. The power elite down at Main Library headquarters (yep, that's the building you love to hate) counted on $10 million in state funds to complete its ambitious program to build 5 new branches and renovate 19 more. But they apparently overlooked the fact that the big state bond program to help California's libraries was intended primarily for growing cities that had no libraries or only one. Further, this money was meant to build new libraries. The SFPL's bid for funds to renovate the Richmond and Excelsior Branches was turned down cold. Now you wouldn't know anything about this if you depended on information from city librarian Susan Hildreth's hand-picked "advisory" bodies. (Talk about the bland leading the bland!) The attendance is poor. The advice is negligible and not welcome anyway. And what information there is somehow doesn't get transmitted to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors or the public. For example, there has barely been a word about a money gap that will prevent the SFPL from completing the work promised voters when the $106 million branch improvement bonds passed. It wasn't until late last month that the library finally told its so-called advisory bodies the facts. And that was only because the SFPL wanted their support for a plan that will close from 6 to 12 branch libraries for upgrades at the same time. In any event, the public has no way to penetrate this facade without going to the advisory committee meetings. There is no public notice (even if you ask for it), no public comment, and no taped record of what went on. In brief, sunshine is in short supply. Hildreth told the Library Commission she established these advisory groups herself in order to minimize sunshine requirements. By contrast, Daly's library CAC would be fully covered by the Sunshine Ordinance and would solicit public ideas. The supervisors would pick the members, whose charge would be to discuss substantive library issues and make recommendations to the full board. The CAC's scope would include library plans, programs, operations, and services to the public. And, yes, that hefty bond issue. Such a body would truly involve the public in their neighborhood libraries. So what's with Hildreth? Why is she working with bigwigs in the well-heeled Friends of the Library to put the kibosh on Daly's legislation? There's nothing to fear from robust public participation. To quote William Shakespeare,
an author whose insights about human behavior span the centuries: "The
lady doth protest too much, methinks." |
||