Salem Political Snark

Three facts about the controversy over Salem library moving to church property

We love facts here at the Salem Political Snark blog. We also adore opinions, which should be based on facts as much as possible.

So here's some facts about the controversial proposal of City officials to temporarily house the public library in a building owned by the Salem Alliance Church, along with my opinions about those facts. Note: I'm going to send this blog post to officials at the City of Salem so they can check my facts.

First, though, I invite you to sign a petition I started last Friday in support of the Salem Human Rights Commission, which opposes the library using the church-owned building while renovations are occurring, given the church's opposition to same-sex marriage and its view that same-sex sex is a sin.

Click here to view my "Stand up for LGBTQ rights in Salem!" petition. 

The following facts are based on the most recent meeting of the Library Renovation Council Subcommittee. I listened to the portion of the audio file of the June 18, 2019 meeting dealing with the relocation of the library, since apparently there are no written minutes of the meeting. (The Meeting Notes just consisted of the audio file.)

I jotted down quotes as I listened. The quotes from meeting participants (see above) shared in this post shouldn't be taken as a perfect transcript of what they said, but are accurate enough for blog post purposes. The discussion of finding a site to temporarily house the library was lengthy.

It often was difficult to know who was speaking. So if I'm confident about who said something, I'll identify them in a quote. Otherwise, I'll leave the quote unidentified. Here's the three facts that stood out for me.

(1) Seemingly there are alternatives to the building owned by the Salem Alliance Church. At the subcommittee's April meeting, three locations were mentioned as leading candidates to temporarily house the library: the church-owned Capital Press building, Liberty Plaza, and the Vick Building. 

Some Googling shows that large spaces in Liberty Plaza no longer are available. But plenty of space in the Vick Building is still shown as available to be leased, 24,000 square feet on the first and second floors. I believe the library is only looking for around 15,000 square feet. The Capital Press building is 16,000 square feet.

And there was talk at the June meeting about a location that I believe was termed "Pringle Warehouse." It could be this listing, but I'm not sure. Regardless, I didn't hear anyone say the Capital Press building was the only option for the library. It just was viewed by City staff as the best option.

Library staff and others toured the Vick Building, but felt the Capital Press building was preferable. One reason is cost, since it was said repeatedly that if the lease (likely 18 months) cost less than was budgeted, the savings could be used for other library needs. This tells me that the City of Salem probably could afford to lease a different building, if this was necessary.

(2) The Library Renovation Subcommittee was divided on the Capital Press building. Much of the discussion at the meeting centered around pushback from the community if the City of Salem leased space for the library from a church that is viewed as anti-LGBTQ rights, given its stance on same-sex marriage and same-sex sex. Here's some quotes:

"I think we're going to be dinged for it [using the church building], and I don't like it. I don't like giving money to a church that is discriminatory, and doesn't follow the law."

"My concern is that there are community groups that will not meet at that space [Broadway Commons, also owned by the church]. And if I can extrapolate, they would not meet at the library, if we were to be there [Capital Press building]. So that's a concern for me, and I'm just concerned we're going to limit the people who are going to come to the library for the next two years."

Now, my impression is that when the person quoted above said the church doesn't follow the law, this referred to the fact that same-sex marriage is legal everywhere in the United States. However, the Salem Alliance Church doesn't believe in same-sex marriage.

Others at the meeting argued that it is legal for a church to deny its members the right to be married by the church, which is correct. However, this didn't sway those who felt that the City of Salem shouldn't house the public library in a building owned by a group opposed to LGBTQ rights.

Near the end of the meeting, Public Works Director Peter Fernandez (whose voice I recognized) said in regard to leasing the church-owned building, "We're just going to have to hold our nose." Meaning, ignore something unpleasant. And in regard to going to the Human Rights Commission, Fernandez said, "We're just looking for some discussion and ultimately some cover."

Turns out, not only did the Human Rights Commission not give City officials any cover when it comes to leasing the Capital Press building, it actively opposed doing this.

(3) Most agreed that the Human Rights Commission should weigh-in on the LGBTQ rights issue. Given the back and forth between the Library Renovation Subcommittee members regarding the appropriateness of temporarily housing the library in a building owned by the Salem Alliance Church, there was general agreement that the Human Rights Commission should be asked how it feels about this.

What I found interesting is how optimistic most of the committee members were about getting the Human Rights Commission stamp of approval to lease the Capital Press building from the church. The plan was for several City of Salem staff members to first meet with the Commission's LGBTQ Rights Task Force, then with the Human Rights Commission itself.

The idea was to stress how welcoming and inclusive the temporary library would be to the LGBTQ community, even though the Salem Alliance Church was opposed to the fundamental rights of same-sex marriage and the ability to engage in same-sex sex without being termed a "sinner."

Of course, that idea came to a screeching halt when the Human Rights Commission ended up voting unanimously to oppose using the church-owned property as a temporary library. 

Listening to the audio recording of the meeting, it seems to me that the subcommittee didn't understand that just because a church has the legal right to discriminate against LGBTQ people, this doesn't mean that the City of Salem should funnel public funds into the Salem Alliance Church bank account, and force citizens who care about LGBTQ rights and also want to use the library to make a tough ethical decision during the renovation period.

I was able to make out the distinctive voice of Councilor Jim Lewis. Here's part of what he had to say:

"This is a business transaction. The church has a right to work within its rules. Our job here is to find the best facility for the library. And if that means someone won't go to it, so be it."

That led another committee member to say:

"I disagree. We have an obligation to make sure we have a space that is open and welcoming to the community. I'm not saying that we shouldn't go there [to the church-owned building]. I'm just saying we have a [Human Rights] Commission. We have a process. If there are things we can do to help mitigate those concerns, I think we should do them."

Well, the Human Rights Commission statement on this issue ended up saying this:

The Commission respectfully requests that the City review the available properties for other potential options, and select another location, even if that location is not as ideal in cost or operations.

So given that the Library Renovation Subcommittee of the City Council decided to ask the Human Rights Commission how it felt about use of the church-owned building for a temporary library, and the Commission basically said find another place, even if it costs more and is less efficient, the burden now is on City officials to prove that no other building in Salem is available.

Given that City staff clearly want to use the Capital Press building, I'm worried that the staff report going to the City Council won't honestly and accurately present the other options for housing the library. This needs to happen so the Council can assess the pros and cons of leasing space from a church that is anti-LGBTQ rights.

It seems to me that the wisest course of action would be to pick a different location for a temporary library. Indications are that this issue will be discussed, and possibly voted on, at the Monday, June 22 meeting of the Salem City Council.

I'll end by observing that our one and only daily print newspaper, the Statesman Journal, so far has failed to run a story about the Human Rights Commission opposing use of the church-owned building for a temporary library. I emailed two reporters at the Statesman Journal who cover city government, suggesting a story, but never got a reply.

Pleasingly, the online-only Salem Reporter did run a story, "Plan to move Salem library to church-owned property stirs discrimination concerns."

Sign a petition to support LBGTQ rights in Salem

Please sign this petition I just started to support the Salem Human Rights Commission in its stand against the City of Salem leasing a building from the Salem Alliance Church to temporarily house the public library.

Click on this link to the Care2 Stand up for LGBTQ rights in Salem! petition.

The church rejects same-sex marriage and considers same-sex sex to be a sin. The Commission is calling on City officials to find another location for the library while renovations are made, even if that location costs more and is less convenient.

Human Rights Commission stand on library relocation rests on secular faith

I'm a proud atheist. But for 35 years I was religious, having been an active member of an Indian organization led by a guru considered to be God in human form.

So I understand how powerful religious faith can be. I also know that secular forms of faith are equally powerful and deserve just as much respect. 

In fact, more so, as I'll explain below.

This is why I admire the stand of Salem's Human Rights Commission, which recently unanimously voted to oppose the City of Salem paying the Salem Alliance Church for use of a church-owned building to temporarily house the public library while renovations are being made.

The church considers that same-sex marriage and same-sex sex are sins.

Not surprisingly, the Salem Alliance Church doesn't base this anti-LGBTQ attitude on anything but the Bible. Which is a circular argument, since as I noted in a post on my churchless blog, the church uses the same illogic that is common to every religion.

What we believe is true because the holy scripture or holy person we believe in says it is true.

But here's the important thing. Religious faith has nothing to do with the practice of being faithful to some cause, moral standard, or divine entity. Martin Hägglund discusses this in his marvelous book, "This Life: Secular Life and Spiritual Freedom."

Religious faith takes the object of faith to be a god -- or some other form of infinite being -- that is independent of our practice of faith. Our spiritual cause is treated as though it were a being that commands and has power over us without being dependent on us.

In other words, the Biblical God worshipped by the Salem Alliance Church isn't affected in any way by how LGBTQ people are treated. That God (which I consider to be imaginary, along with all other gods) isn't lessened or enhanced if same-sex marriage is legal, as it is in the entire United States now.

Thus whenever we humans take a stand on some moral or ethical issue, our secular faith is at stake -- not religious faith. I quoted Hägglund in my post, "What sustains us is caring in time, not detachment in eternity."

Secular faith is committed to persons and projects that may be lost: to make them live on for the future. Far from being resigned to death, a secular faith seeks to postpone death and improve the conditions of life. As we will see, living on should not be conflated with eternity.

The commitment to living on does not express an aspiration to live forever but to live longer and to live better, not to overcome death but to extend the duration and improve the quality of a form of life.

...To have secular faith is to acknowledge that the object of our faith is dependent on the practice of faith. I call it secular faith, since the object of devotion does not exist independently of those who believe in its importance and who keep it alive through their fidelity.

The Salem Human Rights Commission was practicing secular faith when it issued the statement calling for the City of Salem to find another location for a temporary library, even if it cost more or was less convenient than the church-owned building, because, as the Commission said in its statesment:

It is offensive to some members of the Salem community for the City to enter into a contract with, and pay money to, an entity that may be experienced as unwelcoming to members of the LGBTQ community.

...Locating the Library at the proposed site will result in a Library that some members of the community, not only the LGBTQ, will not be willing to visit, and will negatively impact the Library’s mission.

Hopefully city officials and the Salem City Council will realize that people take secular forms of faith just as seriously as religious forms of faith.

I say this because when I listened to an audio recording of the April meeting of the City Council's Library Renovation Subcommittee, I was struck by how much of the tenor of the discussion over where to temporarily house the library centered around cost and convenience, not the ethics of using public funds to pay a church that, to put it bluntly, views LGBTQ people as second-class citizens.

Earth to City officials: It isn't always about money!

The Human Rights Commission has said that even if it costs more to lease a different building, this should be done, because it is the right thing to do.

That's secular faith -- having the courage to stand up for a cause, and at-risk people, even when this is inconvenient, bothersome, and expensive in monetary terms. After all, what's the point of saving money if a value that makes life worth living is frittered away?

I'll end with another quote from Martin Hägglund's book.

The commitment to mutual social freedom as an end in itself -- as a spiritual cause that commands us to act -- is our secular achievement and not due to any religious revelation.

Freedom as an end in itself is not promoted by any of the world's religions or by any of its founding figures. Neither Jesus nor Buddha or Muhammad has anything to say about freedom as an end in itself. This is not an accident but consistent with their teachings.

What ultimately matters from a religious perspective is not freedom, but salvation; what ultimately matters is not to lead a life but to be saved from being alive.

Human Rights Commission rejects plan for library to use church building

Thanks to quick work by staff of Salem's Human Rights Commission, today I got draft minutes of two meetings that I requested.

This allows me to sound like CNN's Wolf Blitzer and intone, Breaking news! Happening now! Human Rights Commission says "No" to City officials' plan to lease space from the anti-gay Salem Alliance Church to temporarily house library.


As noted in yesterday's blog post, "City officials may pay anti-gay church to house library," this controversial proposal was addressed by the LGBTQ Rights Task Force of the Human Rights Commission on June 26, and by the full Commission on July 2.

Below I've shared the text of three documents that I received from Gretchen Bennett, whose title is Human Rights and Relations/Federal Compliance Manager, Mayor/City Manager’s Office, City of Salem. I complimented her on the wonderfully detailed and well-written draft minutes of the meetings.

Bennett also shared a statement that was passed unanimously by the Salem Human Rights Commission on July 2 that opposes using the Salem Alliance Church building for a temporary relocation of the Salem Public Library. I've boldfaced parts for emphasis in this blog post.
Download HRC statement on the Library relocation

As you read these materials, keep in mind that the Salem Alliance Church believes that same-sex sex and same-sex marriage is a sin, and the Broadway Coffee House run by the church refuses to say that they would hire an otherwise qualified person who was a member of the LGBTQ community. 

My previous blog post contains links to other posts I've written that document these facts.

Here's the Human Rights Commission statement. I applaud the Commission for standing up for what is right, even if it causes some inconvenience to those planning the library relocation.

It's also admirable that the Commission and the LGBTQ Rights Task Force stood firm against the library director, City of Salem attorney, and Commission staff -- all of whom clearly wanted the Human Rights Commission to go along with the plan of city officials to relocate the library to the old Capital Press building owned by the Salem Alliance Church.

UPDATE: In a comment on this post, someone shared an audio file of the April 19 Library Renovation Council Subcommittee meeting. Discussion of sites to temporarily house the library is at about the 34 minute mark. This shows that contrary to what the Human Rights Commission was told, there are several other viable locations other than the Capital Press building owned by the Salem Alliance Church.

There also was a recognition by the committee that leasing the church building would be controversial, given the church's discriminatory attitude toward the LGBTQ community. At about 41:30 in the recording there's mention that Gretchen Bennett, staff to the Human Rights Commission, was asked about this and said the controversy would be "easily weathered." Well, we shall see about that.

At about the 42 minute mark a committee member asks about money from the City of Salem going into church coffers, which obviously would occur.

Bottom line: it appears that City staff wrongly asserted to the Human Rights Commission that the church building was the only viable site to house the library, while this wasn't the message being given to the Library Renovation Council Subcommittee. And they knew that the church discriminated against LGBTQ people, but thought they could still get away with leasing the church building.

The Liberty Plaza site is no longer available to lease, but the Vick Building is still listed. So City officials need to do some explaining about why they told the LGBTQ Rights Task Force, which is part of the Human Rights Commission, that the church building was the only option to house the library.

Here's a link to the audio file.

http://media.cityofsalem.net/meetings/audio/library-renovation-council-subcommittee-audio-2019-04-19.mp3

That's why I've included the full text of the documents in this blog post. Reading the material is seeing democracy in action, people struggling to find the correct way forward, and speaking truth to power.

Salem Human Rights Commission statement concerning
the potential lease of property owned by the Salem Alliance Church
for the temporary relocation of the Salem Public Library.

[Note: I've added emphasis of certain sections by boldfacing the text]

The Salem Human Rights Commission (Commission) is deeply concerned about the proposed lease of the property owned by the Salem Alliance Church for the temporary location of the Salem Public Library. The Commission values having a library that they can reasonably expect all persons will access, to be consistent with the purpose and intent of the City’s Human Rights Code. The Commission believes that some members of the community, including some in LGBTQ communities, will not be comfortable accessing the space.

The purpose of the Commission is to promote harmonious relations within the city, examine sources of tension, practices of discrimination and act of prejudice in the city, and make recommendations concerning solutions to specific problems of prejudice or discrimination. The Commission will continue to be available for reports of discrimination in the community.

The Commission fully understands and supports freedom of religion and expression for all people, including faith based organizations. One of the Commission’s roles is to actively assist persons who experience discrimination based upon religion.

This commitment to freedom of religion, however, does not allow for the Commission to be in support of this business transaction. It is offensive to some members of the Salem community for the City to enter into a contract with, and pay money to, an entity that may be experienced as unwelcoming to members of the LGBTQ community.

The Commission strongly supports and appreciates the mission and programing of the Salem Public Library, The Library plays a critical role in providing a welcoming and supportive environment for all members of the community, particularly members of the community that are vulnerable, our youth, and those of limited means. Locating the Library at the proposed site will result in a Library that some members of the community, not only the LGBTQ, will not be willing to visit, and will negatively impact the Library’s mission.

The Commission has been informed that this location is the only adequate property available for the Library relocation, and that if the City does not use this space, only the west Salem library branch will be open during the renovation.

The Commission respectfully requests that the City review the available properties for other potential options, and select another location, even if that location is not as ideal in cost or operations. In the event that the City must use this location, the Commission recommends that the City Council publicly proclaim the City’s support and adherence to the purpose and intent ofthe City’s Human Rights Code, particularly as applied to the LGBTQ community, and urge all ofthe city’s residents to support and encourage a city free of discriminatory barriers. Further, the City should affirm that the City, particularly the Library, is open and welcoming to all members of the Community, and that the City is committed to ensuring that the Library will remain so during its relocation. The Commission and the LBGTQ Task Force is committed to working with the Salem Public Library to develop options to make the Library’s temporary space accessible, welcoming and inclusive to all.

Approved by the Human Rights Commission July 2, 2019

______________________________________ Danielle Meyer, Chair,
on behalf of the Human Rights Commission

Here's the text of an Action Item discussed at the July 2 Human Rights Commission meeting that led to the statement above being approved. The full draft minutes can be read by clicking on this link.
Download 7 2 2019 Human Rights Commission

Action Item: Library Relocation/ Inclusive Space

Sarah Strahl and Dan Atchison gave a review of the library relocation project including its scope, purpose and needs of the library. The Library Renovation Council Subcommittee has been in the process of reviewing potential temporary space for a full service Library during the seismic retrofit. As options for that space came to the committee, one of the potential spaces includes the old Capital Press building, owned by Salem Alliance Church. The Subcommittee requested the Human Right’s Commission’s input into ensuring all races, creeds, religions and identities continue to be welcome in the new space, as they are in the current location. Chair Meyer asked Commissioners to review the draft statement from the Commission to see if there were any changes they would like to make.

Vice Chair Bechtoldt draws members to the fourth paragraph, second line of the draft statement which says, “[i]t is offensive to members of the Commission, and to some in the local LGBTQ community, for the City to enter into a contract with, and pay money to, an entity that may beexperienced as unwelcoming to members of the LGBTQ community” to instead read “it isoffensive to some in the local LGBTQ community....”

Member Watters suggests taking out the language of “members of the Commission” and instead read “Commission” to make it more general. Member Dass clarified with staff if this statement should be coming from the HRC and not the LGBTQ Task Force. Member Borja stated if the location will be the place of the library, it would be beneficial to add language about how the library could make itself more inclusive.

Member HK Leblond agreed and felt it was important it is stressed in the statement that the Commission is there to help the library and the community and wants more information about the experiences of people with the organization; this is seconded by Member Aquinas- Gallagher. Chair Meyer says she has personally not experienced discrimination, that no formal complaint has been made to the City or the Commission and that she feels like the statement is both accurate and necessary.

Member Schwartz shared feedback from a member of the public and Vice Chair Bechtoldt shared her experience of her work place choosing to not hold events at another church owned property. Member HK Leblond asks how the City plans to react if the library moves in and there are community concerns. Chair Meyer stresses that she is confident the City and its staff would not act discriminatory, but is concerned about the perception. Dan Atchison was able to clarify that this would purely be a business transaction as the City has with other rental sites across the city and this is a policy issue rather than a legal issue.

Member Dass circles back to Member HK Leblond’s question about issues that may arise after the library moves in and how the library plans to handle those. Librarian Sarah Strahl shares this is why the Library Renovation Council Subcommittee has approached them for feedback and how they can make the space more inclusive. Chair Meyer thanked Sarah and says that the Commission will continue to be a resource to the library through this process.

Vice Chair Bechtoldt makes a motion to amend the statement to read that “[i]t is offensive tomembers of the Salem community for the City to enter into a contract with, and pay money to,an entity that may be experienced as unwelcoming to members of the LGBTQ community.” This is seconded by Member HK Leblond and passed unanimously.

Member Borja asks if the Commission wanted to provide clearer direction to the Library staff about ways the Library could be more inclusive if the location was selected. Chair Meyer and Member Tricarico suggest adding a sentence explicitly stating the Human Rights Commission and the LGBTQ Task Force are here to provide support to the community and the Library. Dan and Sarah confirm the plan for the Library move is November, so there is time to plan more concrete suggestions if that is desired.

Member HK Leblond read aloud from Chapter 97 of the Salem Revised Code which helps guide the Commission and says that she wants to add the sentence regarding support. After discussion among the group, Member HK Leblond motions for the sentence, “[t]he Commission will continue to be available for reports of discrimination in the community” to be added to the end of the second paragraph. This is seconded by Member Watters and approved unanimously by the Commission.

Member HK Leblond then motions for the entire statement as amended to be approved by the Commission, this is seconded by Member Dass and approved unanimously. Dan lets the Commission know he will make their amendments to the statement and then provide a copy for Chair Meyer to sign on behalf of the Commission. He shares he anticipates the issue going before Council on July 22nd.

Lastly, here's part of the draft minutes of the June 26 meeting of the LGBTQ Rights Task Force of the Human Rights Commission. This is where the idea for a statement opposing relocation of the library to the building owned by the Salem Alliance Church originated.
Download LGBTQ Rights June

5. Salem Public Library: Welcoming and Inclusive Services

Norm Wright, Salem Community Development Director, and Sarah Strahl, City Librarian, shared the upcoming plan to seismically retrofit the main branch of the library. They are here to ask how, in the new space, they can make our library as welcoming and inclusive as possible. APowerPoint presentation was provided. Norm spoke to the library’s core services of welcoming spaces, collections, outreach/events, technology access and customer assistance. A temporary space will be needed for at least 18 months.

Norm noted the group has been working since November with a relocation committee which includes Councilors Hoy, Lewis and Library Advisory Board member Stark. The group researched locations and is left with one option available to continue providing services. The site was formerly known as Capital Press, and is owned by Salem Alliance Church. The space is move-in ready, and the team is running out of time. Access, building safety and life systems such as egress, are examples of criteria considered in site selection.

Warehouses were one type of building looked at, Norm explained, but these are built with different requirements, given they aren’t needing to house a large number of people. Over1,000 persons a day come through the main branch, and aspects such as exiting in case of emergency, bathrooms, and other features must be considered. The bond funding provided for the retrofit project is not able to be used for renovating temporary space, nor is there time to do so.

Sarah shared the location is in an active part of town at Broadway and Market and is on a major bus line. There will be free parking while at this interim space. There will be some viable meeting rooms available. There is also a loading dock; given the lack of overall space in the facility (going from 90,000 square feet to 15,000 square feet) a functional loading dock is key to acquire materials from partnering libraries as well as to stock outreach vehicles.

Sarah spoke to the importance of ensuring everyone is welcome in the new space. She discussed past activities such as the table in conjunction with Transgender Day of Remembrance and spoke of methods such as pins worn to express personal pronouns.

Norm and Sarah and the library renovation committee are at the Commission to request ananswer to the question, “How can we make our library space as welcoming and inclusive aspossible?”

Chair Meyer thanked Norm and Sarah for presenting and shared she has always been impressed with the library as a regular patron.

In answer to the question, she said the way to be welcoming is to learn what the published policies are of the owner of the space as to their inclusion of all persons including LGBTQ communities. She expressed strong opposition to leasing the space without clear, published statements demonstrating commitment to inclusion of LGBTQ communities by the building owner.

Commissioner Rollings expressed great hesitation, feeling it doesn’t look well to collaborate withan organization that is hostile to LGBTQ communities; as President of the local chapter of PFLaG, he said he receives reports of concerns. He shared he is hearing of kids who are directly affected by bias experienced. He was concerned city tax dollars would go to an organization that doesnot align with the library’s values of inclusion.

Commissioner Aquinas Gallagher expressed she felt it is wrong, and a stand must be taken. She spoke of an example of a person who expressed concerns to her, who is gay, and opted to leave their previous affiliation with the church.

Commissioner Schwartz spoke of reports of hateful things in a local blog and of concerns/complaints she has heard from people in the community. She raised the recent scheduling of a specific group at the library, who had been known to express hate.

Gretchen paused the conversation, and observed that everyone in the room shares a common goal to be welcoming and inclusive to all, and, to have a library space during the seismic retrofit.

Commissioner Watters was unable to be at the meeting; he submitted written input; copies of his email were shared with all participants. His input was noted.

Gretchen inquired if the complaints discussed related to places of public accommodation? She noted the community blog includes a statement from the church, which clarifies that the church does not ask questions in the hiring process related to LGBTQ, that it operates its public spaces to be open to everyone. She noted the right of faith based organizations to freedom of religion, a factor the Human Rights Commission also works with.

The group spoke of the dependence of the community on the library, and that there aren’t other options. Gretchen expressed significant concern of not having a library for the many who depend on the space especially in winter months or for critical help such as technology access.

An idea of a statement emerged. Members and Commissioners discussed the idea of making a strong statement of concern. Gretchen inquired what the statement would be based upon, given the freedom of religion and the lack of substantiated complaints received.

Gretchen spoke of criteria for what goes into a statement or a recommendation. When contemplating these it is helpful to ask questions such as what the impact will be (no library during winter months?), what the recommendation is based upon, and to always be accurate. It is difficult to take indirect or secondary reports, and from that to imply founded discrimination.

A brief recess was taken.

The group clarified that the lease agreement would allow the City to control what signs were up in the space; Norm indicated yes.

Commissioner Aquinas-Gallagher shared she would not go to the library if the site is chosen.

Chair Meyer clarified the process. Norm noted that this option is emerging as there is not another option. City Council makes decisions on lease agreements. Chair Meyer spoke of understanding the need, and putting value on people, not spaces.

Commissioner Rollings inquired about purchasing processes. Norm explained it works much like local house hunting wherein they are free to research from multiple brokers and places, not limited to those who apply or come to them. He spoke of the exhaustive search undertaken these past months.

Commissioner Schwartz urged everyone to think about what is right, not only about what is legal.

Member Kimball acknowledged the difficulty. He encouraged keeping open discussion. He encouraged the library to commit openly in forward facing ways with the LGBTQ community.Commissioner Watters’ email also contained a suggestion along those lines if this was the onlyspace available.

The group discussed looking at it through the lens of the Human Rights Commission at their next meeting, July 2.

Commissioner Borja indicated the group should also address the question the library staff asked, which is how the library space can be as welcome and inclusive as possible? She does not want to not see a library.

City officials may pay anti-gay church to house library

This seems horrible to me. How does it strike you?

I've heard from several sources that officials at the City of Salem are seriously considering paying the Salem Alliance Church to use the old Capital Press building that the church owns as a temporary public library while the library building at the Civic Center undergoes renovations.

Here's the problem with this: the Salem Alliance Church is notoriously anti-gay. Meaning, anti-homosexual, anti-LGBTQ, anti-anything that their archaic view of sexuality considers a sin.

So if this ill-considered scheme comes to pass, taxpayer money would be going to an organization that flaunts the inclusive policy prominently displayed on agendas of the Human Rights Commission, which is based in the Salem Mayor's and City Manager's Office.

Now, my understanding is that Oregon churches are partially exempt from anti-discrimination laws.

So I'll leave it to better legal minds than mine to determine whether it would be legal for the City of Salem to enter into a contract with a church that openly declares same-sex marriage and same-sex sex to be a sin, and refuses to say whether it would hire an otherwise qualified LGBTQ person to work at the Broadway Commons or Broadway Coffeehouse.

My concern isn't so much whether this would be legal, but whether it would be right.

After all, any money paid by the City of Salem to rent or lease the Capital Press building as a temporary library would go directly into the Salem Alliance Church bank account, thereby supporting a religious organization that discriminates against LGBTQ people.

I've been told that the Salem Alliance Church is eager to enter into a contract with the City of Salem because the church wants to pay off what it owes on the Capital Press building purchase. The big question is whether city officials should be equally eager to join hands with a church that is anti-gay.

Here's a sign that those officials are aware of how controversial this move would be. 

The agenda for the June 26 meeting of the Human Rights Commission LGBTQ Rights Task Force contained this item.

Then, the agenda for the July 2 meeting of the Human Rights Commission had an item related to the library relocation.

Sure seems like City officials are justifiably worried that relocating the library to a building owned by an anti-gay church could raise questions about the City of Salem's commitment to LGBTQ rights. 

(I've requested minutes of the June 26 and July 2 meetings in either audio or written form, as they aren't available on the City of Salem web site.)

So here's a suggestion to City officials: DON'T DO IT.

Choose a place to temporarily house the Salem Public Library that isn't connected with an organization that calls same-sex marriage and same-sex sex a sin. 

Here's links to my previous blog posts about the archaic views of the Salem Alliance Church:

Two reports of how Broadway Coffee House/Commons discriminates against LGBT people
Salem Alliance Church pastor talks about sin of same-sex sex
Broadway Coffee House does discriminate against gay people
Why supporters of gay rights should boycott Broadway Commons

City Council should stop library from discarding books needlessly

The Big Weed is up for discussion at next Monday's City Council meeting (July 8, 6 pm). Unfortunately, this agenda item isn't about a garden horror or a massive marijuana plant. 

It concerns the needless removal of books from the Salem Public Library. 

Jim Scheppke, who spent 20 years as the State Librarian for Oregon before he retired, is aghast at how Salem's library has been allowed to deteriorate.

He's amassed a lot of convincing arguments, backed up by solid data, in hopes that even though the library's ill-considered book removal policy is shown as only an information item for the City Council, councilors will act to stop the Big Weed.

Scheppke's report, "Why the Big Weed must end," has been submitted as advance testimony for the City Council meeting. As a lover of books, I found a chart in the report to be deeply disturbing. Here's a screenshot that includes commentary by Scheppke.

Wow. A quarter of the book collection has been lost in the past six years, with every year showing a decline.

Hopefully this long-term decimation of the Salem Public Library's book collection will get more attention from city councilors than a flawed one-month analysis of book removals and additions for May 2019 that's part of a staff report for the upcoming meeting.

This analysis was performed by library staff after it was requested by the City Council in April of this year. So to my mind it's meaningless. Scheppke and other critics of the Big Weed have been hammering library administrators for discarding books without good reason.

So rather than ask library staff to defend prior discarding of books, the City Council gave them advance notice that the next month's book removal effort would be scrutinized. Not surprisingly, for the month of May things looked more or less OK. Here's how Scheppke described this in an email to supporters of ending the Big Weed.

The so-called “tracking study” done in May is being used to try to show that the Council has nothing to worry about if they give the green light. Of course the whole thing was rigged to put the situation in the best light. 

As this chart from the agenda packet shows, in May 592 adult non-fiction books were added and 499 were removed “through review.” Another 77 were weeded for condition (“snags”), for a net gain of 16 books.

 

Trouble is this was a totally atypical month, because we know that in the past six years our adult book collection has not grown. It has been reduced by 24%. In each of the past six years an average of 10% of the collection has been removed, the result being that we now have one of the smallest book collections per capita of any library in the state.

 

Our collection of only 1.6 books per capita is far below the state average of about 2 books per capita.

 

The May tracking study was “lipstick on a pig.” It is an attempt to fool the Salem City Council to look the other way so that thousands more books can be removed from our library, as happened last fall.

I'm bothered not only by this current example of City of Salem staff doing the lipstick on a pig thing, but how this has been a frequent way of operating by city officials during the tenure of City Manager Steve Powers. Meaning, citizen concerns often are not directly addressed. Instead, bureaucratic double-talk is used to defend otherwise indefensible city policies. 

In this case, Scheppke and others have systematically documented how the Salem Public Library has failed to follow generally accepted guidelines for discarding books. Yet neither the City Librarian, Sarah Strahl, nor her acquiescent Library Advisory Board have presented cogent arguments against Scheppke, et.al.

Instead, they just say they should be allowed to keep on with their Big Weed, facts be damned. Which isn't how any government official should behave, especially a librarian who supposedly is dedicated to facts, reason, and open discussion.

There's still time to submit testimony to the City Council urging that the Salem Public Library stop discarding books for no good reason. Email your thoughts to [email protected] and reference Agenda Item 6.b

Here's another excerpt from Scheppke's tell-all report:

The Big Picture

 

In closing I want to step back from the Big Weed and make note of the fact that most Salem elected officials and library users do not realize how substandard our library has become. It's not just the adult book collection that has suffered a "death by 1,000 cuts" over several decades.

 

When I moved to Oregon with my librarian wife in 1986, the Salem Public Library, under the outstanding leadership of George Happ, was regarded as one of the best public libraries in Oregon. The library was known as an innovator.

 

It was the first to have an auditorium (and even today only one other public library, Beaverton City Library, has one). It was the first library to have an interactive space for children, the Discovery Room, which still draws children to the library today. There was a time with our library even offered low cost dial-up Internet service to make the Internet available to more citizens. How far we have fallen from those glory days.

 

The Oregon Public Library Report Card compares the 29 largest libraries in Oregon (those serving over 25,000 population) on 14 different key metrics that assess library quality and library performance. For each metric a grade is awarded based on how the library falls within a quintile ranking of the 29 libraries.

 

As shown in the comparison of the top eight libraries in the state, the Salem Public Library scores no better than a D or an F on 9 of the 14 metrics, worse than any other major library. Its best score is a B for Children's Program  Attendance Per Capita. But all the other scores range from mediocre to poor.

 

What drives most of the poor scores for our library is the metric Total Library Expenditures Per Capita where our library scores an F, with expenditures of only $28.52 per capita. Our library ranks third from the bottom of all 29 libraries serving over 25,000 population. Even the Jackson County Library, which has struggled for funding in the past decade with the dramatic decline in county timber receipts, manages to spend about $10 more per capita than our library.

 

And the top funded library, Multnomah County Library spends over three times the amount per capita as our library. Eugene spends more than twice as much.

 

It should be clear that our library will stay at the bottom of the heap as the worst major library in Oregon unless some way is found to improve library funding. The Big Weed just rubs salt into the wound. To me it's madness to set out to discard thousands of books when our library's ability to replace them and to grow our collection appears to be nonexistent at this time.

Gov. Brown and Salem Reporter shine in climate bill saga

After being deeply upset with how Democrats and Republicans behaved in the walkout of GOP members of the state Senate over HB 2020, a cap and trade climate bill, it's great to find some bright spots in this saga -- Governor Kate Brown and Aubrey Wieber, a Salem Reporter journalist.

Governor Kate Brown has earned back my admiration after she responded to the first May walkout of Republican senators by agreeing to kill two bills that were opposed by the GOP, being Democratic priorities  (a pro-vaccine bill and a gun control bill).

I thought this bad move would encourage Republicans to test Democratic resolve later in the legislative session. But I figured such would happen in the House, not the Senate, since GOP members of the Senate had agreed not to walk out again for the rest of the session.

They lied.

Pleasingly, it appears that Brown didn't give up anything of importance in the second walkout. After ordering the Oregon State Police to find the Republican senators who had deserted their posts, they came back on their own and played nice, mostly, during a rush to vote on over a hundred backed-up bills last weekend. 

Brown inspired the crowd at a pro-climate bill rally last Tuesday in her brief but passionate remarks, even though Senate President Courtney had declared HB 2020 dead earlier in the day given lackluster support among Senate Democrats. 

So there's a good chance the walkout of Senate Republicans had no effect on the passage of HB 2020, given that at least three Senate Democrats were either strong No's or leaning that way prior to the walkout.

Today Governor Brown made a strong statement in favor of pursuing the carbon pollution reduction goals of HB 2020, either through executive action or reintroduction of the climate bill. Here's the first part of a Salem Reporter story by Aubrey Wieber, "Governor threatens to do by rule what she couldn't by legislation."

Less than 24 hours after the 2019 Legislature closed, Gov. Kate Brown renewed the fight for a cap and trade program, saying Monday she might act with her executive authority to drive ahead with the hotly contested environmental policy.

“Let me be very, very clear,” Brown said. “I am not backing down.”

She spoke on the heels of a major political collapse last week, when Senate Republicans doomed a vote on House Bill 2020. The legislation, setting up a market-based credit system to force polluting industries to reform, had passed the House and was one vote away in the Democratically controlled Senate from becoming state law.

Brown wasn’t taking her most significant legislative loss lightly.

Brown said she wants to see action sooner than later, and is open to calling a special session to again advance the legislation.

“I believe the bill needs some fine-tuning, but I don’t think it needs to be entirely rebuilt,” she said.

Brown said she campaigned on cap and trade, as did many Democratic legislators elected in November. Recent polling shows climate legislation is popular among Oregonians, though more so in urban areas. Her plan was backed by most Oregon voters, she said.

Excellent. Very heartening. Makes me hopeful that Oregon will be a leader in fighting global warming.

It's great that Brown and Democratic leaders in the state legislature, with the notable exception of increasingly useless Senate President Courtney, are standing firm against Republican efforts to declare HB 2020 dead and gone forever, which, clearly, it isn't.

I followed news about the walkout of Republican senators, and what happened after they returned, with rapt attention.

Journalists with the Oregonian, Statesman Journal, and Willamette Week all did very good reporting. But I consider that Aubrey Wieber and his colleagues at the online-only Salem Reporter stood out from the journalistic pack.

Political junkie that I am, Wieber's frequent tweets on Twitter were highly appreciated, especially during the drama in the Senate last Saturday and Sunday. On Twitter I also follow reporters from the newspapers I just mentioned.

Wieber blew them away with his cogent, informative, and grammatically correct tweets. (Yeah, I'm old fashioned. I like complete sentences and accurate spelling in tweets.) I had the feeling that I was looking over the shoulder of a skilled reporter as he observed the machinations in the state Senate, telling his Twitter followers what was going on.

I realize that many people consider Twitter to be an annoying echo chamber of little value. However, it also can be the best means of conveying breaking news, which Wieber masterfully did. As far as I could tell, he was on duty at the legislature for very long hours over the weekend. 

Hopefully Wieber will get a vacation soon, because he deserves one. For not only did he excel on Twitter, his "long form" stories in Salem Reporter were marvelously written as well.

Oregon democracy threatened by Senate GOP walkout

It wasn't pleasant, but I forced myself to read How Democracies Die by two professors of government at Harvard University, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt. 

This is a scary book that, when I read it, seemed like it contained warnings for the United States as a whole in our age of Trumpism, with Oregon being immune from the worst of the ways democracies die.

But the current walkout of Senate Republicans from the state legislature is a clear and present danger to Oregon democracy. This was a message of the recent rally at the capitol by supporters of the climate bill that the Republicans are preventing a vote on, due to their walkout making it impossible for the Senate to have a quorum.

Speakers and signs at the rally noted the threat to democracy that the walkout poses. 

Sure, walkouts have been used for leverage previously by both Democrats and Republicans in the Oregon legislature. However, those walkouts only lasted a few days and were designed to draw attention to an issue, not to bring legislative proceedings to a halt.

Here's why this walkout is so dangerous to democracy.

(1) Senate Republicans are refusing to return to Salem unless they get a guarantee that the climate bill, HB 2020, won't pass. This isn't how democracy works. Votes are taken. Surprises happen in voting. Legislators can change their minds at the last minute. It appears that there aren't enough votes to pass HB 2020, but this can't be guaranteed. 

(2) Democracy respects majority rule. Republicans are in the minority in both the state House and Senate. This was the will of the people. Yet Senate Republicans are acting as if they are the majority party. They're claiming they speak for most Oregonians, but obviously they don't, or they'd control the legislature.

(3) Refusing to take part in the legislative process unless your demands are met is hostage-taking, plain and simple. Strong-arm tactics can't be tolerated in a democracy. As others have noted, what the Senate Republicans are doing is a form of lawmaking terrorism. Winning the hearts and minds of voters should be how a party succeeds in lawmaking, not by engaging in temper tantrums that bring the legislative process to a standstill.

(4) Sen. Brian Boquist, a Republican taking part in the walkout, threatened Oregon State Police troopers with bodily harm (shooting) if they tried to enforce Governor Brown's lawful order to find the Senate Republicans and bring them back to the legislature. Militia members have offered to protect the Senate Republicans. 

(5) Senate Republicans also staged a walkout in May, which unfortunately led to Democratic leaders giving in on several of their demands, including killing two bills that were Democratic priorities. The Senate Republicans agreed in writing to not walkout again for the rest of the legislative session. But they lied, given their second walkout.

In How Democracies Die there's a lot of talk about norms, basically unwritten rules, that need to be followed for democracies to work. Trump, of course, has been demolishing presidential norms almost daily. I'd hoped that Oregon would escape similar Republican craziness. 

Here's a passage from the book:

A second norm critical to democracy's survival is what we call institutional forbearance. Forbearance means "patient self-control; restraint and tolerance," or "the action of restraining from exercising a legal right."

For our purposes, institutional forbearance can be thought of as avoiding actions that, while respecting the letter of the law, obviously violate its spirit.

Where norms of forbearance are strong, politicians do not use their institutional prerogatives to the hilt, even if it is technically legal to do so, for such actions could imperil the existing system.

How the walkout is resolved thus is all-important. In no way, not even in the slightest, should the Senate Republicans be rewarded for what they've done. 

Governor Brown and Senate President Courtney should do these things:

-- Enforce the statutory $500 a day fine for failing to carry out legislative duties
-- Make sure GOP senators aren't able to use campaign funds to pay their fines
-- Have a vote on HB 2020 as required by Senate rules
-- Publicize the agreement GOP senators broke when they walked out a second time
-- Call the senators liars for walking out when they promised not to
-- Say over and over that if HB 2020 isn't enacted this year, it will be reintroduced every year until it does pass
-- Affirm that never again will a walkout of legislators be rewarded in any fashion

Lastly, here's a passage from an excellent Rolling Stone story published today, "Runaway Senators, Militias, and Koch Money: What the Hell Just Happened in Oregon?"

Thanks to Rolling Stone for calling this debacle what it is: Republicans ratfucking the legislative process. (Except rats have more ethics than Senate Republicans.)

The Republican War on Democracy has taken many forms — from extreme gerrymandering, to undermining voting rights through voter-ID laws and disenfranchising people with criminal records, to the Trump administration’s foiled attempt to rig the census in favor of white people. In Oregon, Republicans have chosen a different tactic: ratfucking the legislative process, while making open threats of violence.

Salem Climate Rally -- photos, video, commentary

Here's inspiring photos of the Climate Rally in support of HB 2020 that I took yesterday on the capitol steps, plus a video of Gov. Brown's remarks.

Even though Democratic leaders have declared the bill to be dead, I and other supporters of reducing carbon pollution and creating renewal energy jobs still have hope.

Senate Republicans need to end their walkout temper tantrum and vote on HB 2020, along with other legislation they're holding up.

Climate bill is dead. So are Oregon Democrats, to me.

It's time for me to face reality. Democrats here in Oregon aren't willing to fight for what they believe in. So why should I remain an active Democrat?

That's a question I'm grappling with after Governor Kate Brown, Senate President Peter Courtney, and other Democratic leaders in the state legislature unilaterally surrendered to Republicans on a top priority for Dems, HB 2020, a cap and trade bill that would have put Oregon in the forefront of efforts to combat the carbon pollution that is wreaking havoc on our planet.

Shortly before noon today I arrived at the steps of the capitol building to take part in a rally in support of HB 2020. I wasn't aware that earlier in the morning Courtney had said that the bill was dead. 

Not because a vote had been taken, and there weren't enough Senators in favor of the bill to pass it. (The Oregon House already passed HB 2020).

No, Courtney just said that the bill was dead. Apparently there isn't going to be a Senate vote, so it looks like we'll never know if Courtney's vote-counting was correct, or if a legislator with doubts about HB 2020 could have been persuaded to support the bill.

I'm depressed right now because I wrongly thought that I lived in a state where Democrats are passionate about progressive causes. I believed that Oregon was an oasis of progressive sanity in a country where Trump-led Republicans are acting increasingly crazy.

Like, the Republican members of the Oregon Senate walking out this year not once, but twice, to deny a quorum in the Senate, which requires 20 of the 30 senators to be present (there are 18 Democrats and 12 Republicans).

I couldn't believe it when Brown, Courtney, and other Dem leaders rewarded the first Republican walkout in May by killing two bills the GOP detested, just to get them to return to the legislature and do the job they're required by law to perform. Giving in to hostage-taking generally results in more hostage-taking.

Which, not surprisingly, happened again this month, even though Senate Republicans had promised to not engage in any more temper tantrum walkouts. They lied, as Republicans often do in this age of Trump.

A central demand of Senate Republicans, who reportedly were on vacation in Idaho, was that Oregonians be able to vote on HB 2020. That was an unreasonable demand, since the climate bill has been ten years in the making and was debated extensively in not only this legislative session, but the previous session.

I figured that Democrats would hang tough.

After all, Gov. Brown claimed to be a big backer of HB 2020. She said she'd call a special session in early July if the Senate Republican walkout lasted until the statutory end of the regular session on June 30. Democrats have supermajorities in both the state House and Senate. Oregonians care deeply about the environment.

Again, I figured wrong.

Courtney and Brown collapsed like a house of cards in a hurricane. Today they both declared that HB 2020 was dead without a vote being taken. And from what I can tell from newspaper stories, there won't ever be a vote on the climate bill -- likely to avoid making it clear who the three Democrats are who oppose HB 2020.

A Salem Reporter story describes what happened after Courtney made his surprise announcement.

Looking down at Courtney was a gallery full of supporters of cap and trade, mostly teens, that had traveled to the Capitol to show their support. 

As it became clear Courtney was telegraphing a message to Senate Republicans, whom he wants to return to the Capitol, a man stood and directed the crowd to stand and turn their backs on the Senate President, showing their disdain for his words. 

Brad Reed, spokesman for Renew Oregon, the chief advocacy group pushing cap and trade, said Courtney's words came as a shock. Sixteen senators had given the group confirmation they would vote for it, he said.

"Instead of having the Senate vote on the floor and stand up to the public, the Senate President is allowing members to hide behind a contradictory statement. Make them vote and answer to their voters and Oregon's children," Reed said in a statement after the speech. "This is the biggest failure of public leadership in Oregon in recent memory."

That's putting it mildly.

I've lived in Oregon since 1971. I can't remember any more cowardly action by a state elected official than Governor Brown and Senate President Courtney rewarding Republican walkouts twice by killing important bills that were top Democratic priorities.

It's tough for me to find anything positive in this debacle.

What the Dems have done is establish a deeply dangerous precedent. Whenever Republicans in either the state House or Senate are in the minority, yet have enough members to deny a quorum, all they have to do is walk out, head to a conservative state like Idaho, and wait for Democratic leaders to give in to their demands. 

On social media I've been seeing progressives optimistically say that even though the climate bill is dead now, it can come back to life in another legislative session. Huh? How? This will be impossible unless Democrats have walkout-proof majorities in both the House and Senate.

And that doesn't just mean enough members with a "D" after their names, because in this session two Democratic senators, Betsy Johnson and Arnie Roblan, have said they oppose HB 2020 and so likely would support another Republican walkout. 

The only good news I can dredge up in my mind is that I now can delete email messages from the Oregon Democratic Party and Governor Brown without reading them. When they start fighting for what progressives like me believe in, I'll feel better about my Democratic registration. 

Until then, I'll oppose crazy Republican policies, but I'll admire the GOP in this state for using every tool at their disposal to stand up for what they value. I just wish Oregon Democrats would do the same.

Note: on Facebook today I shared a single photo (shown above) out of the many I took at the noon rally in support of HB 2020 today, saying that I'd share more photos and a video of Brown speaking later.

But now I see no point in doing that, since it would simply depress me further to recollect the passion of real environmental advocates, including many young people, who've been screwed over by Brown, Courtney, and other Democratic leaders. 

Well, since I'd already uploaded the video of Brown speaking to You Tube, I might as well share it. When I heard Gov. Brown, I wasn't aware that she'd called HB 2020 dead. This explains her call for patience in the video. Our planet needs urgent climate action, but Brown is fine with waiting years or decades for Oregon to do our part. 

UPDATE: One of the few bright spots on social media following the announcement that HB 2020 was dead came from Rep. Paul Evans. I liked what he said a lot, and agree wholeheartedly with Evans.

But Republican Senator Kim Thatcher didn't like his mention of "terrorists," so Willamette Week is reporting that she's not inclined to return to the legislature, even after the Dems declared the climate bill dead. Well, that's what happens when Democrats give in to legislative terrorism.

Willamette Week also has obtained a copy of the May agreement between Senate Republicans and Democratic leadership where, as noted above, the Dems killed two bills in exchange for the Republicans promising not to walk out again for the rest of the session. 

Instead of making the Republicans hold up their end of the agreement, Courtney and Brown now have declared HB 2020 dead in the (likely vain) hope that this will bring Senate Republicans back to Salem. Excerpt:

WW has obtained the one-page document that formed the basis for Senate Republicans coming back to work May 13, after the first time this session they fled the Capitol to deny Democrats a quorum.

The document included a pledge not to walk out again. Yet Senate Republicans walked out a second time last week.

...The fact that GOP senators aren't back in Salem yet supports the widespread belief in the Capitol that their second walk-out was about more than HB 2020, that it was about figuring out how to undercut other Democratic priorities, including the corporate tax passed earlier in the session and is set for referral.

The existence of the May 13 document also makes more puzzling Courtney's decision this morning to announce on the Senate floor that he did not have the 16 Democratic votes necessary to pass HB 2020. Rather than trying to hold Republicans to the agreement, Courtney capitulated.

The more I learn about this fiasco, the more irritated I get at how spineless Oregon Democrats allowed Senate Republicans to get away with two walkouts and being able to take credit for killing the cap and trade bill.

Since this story is being discussed nationally, the cowardice shown by Dems in this state likely will embolden Republicans elsewhere to take advantage of Democratic weakness. After all, if Republicans can bend Democrats to their will in a blue state like Oregon, they should be able to do it in other areas also.