Salem Political Snark

Battle of the Books continues with Salem Public Library on defense

There's something both marvelous and disturbing about the vigorous debate happening now (geez, I sound like CNN) between Jim Scheppke, an ardent supporter of all things library'ish, and Sarah Strahl, director of the Salem Public Library, regarding tens of thousands of books being removed from the core collection. 

Marvelous, because I love it when someone who cares deeply about an issue here in Salem takes on the Powers That Be with fierce intensity.

In this case, literally, because as you can read below, Scheppke takes issue with what Steve Powers, the City Manager, is saying about the library's severe cutting back of the core collection (as distinguished from more recent "popular" books akin to what you'd find in a bookstore -- assuming a bookstore can be found these days.)

I find the cutting back deeply disturbing.

I'm supporting Scheppke's position for a couple of reasons: (1) he appears to have the facts on his side, and Scheppke knows something about facts, having been the State Librarian for Oregon for twenty years; (2) I know Scheppke quite well, and he is adept at taking on issues that he cares about with a pleasing blend of passion and precision. 

Well, I just thought of another reason.

It irritates me when public officials like City Librarian Strahl and City Manager Powers double-down on their position without really engaging critics. Changing one's mind in the face of facts isn't a weakness, it's a strength. One that our current President of the United States lacks, I've got to say.

Empty shelves at Salem Public Library following removal of books in core collection 

Anyway, as the Fox News slogan used to say, "We report. You decide." Below is new information Scheppke has shared with me where he responds to defenders of the massive removal of books from the core collection. I'll also share links to my previous posts on this subject.
Salem Public Library removing 30% of core collection. Resistance is mounting.
Library expert criticizes "core book" policy of Salem Public Library

First, here's Jim Scheppke's responses, in red, to a letter that was sent to the members of the Salem Public Library Foundation by the Executive Director, Kate Van Ummersen (I'm assuming she is the "Kate" who signed the letter).

Dear Board Members,

 

Some of you may have seen a controversy unfold over the weekend on blogs and social media around the Collection Development Policy at the Library. 

 

There is no controversy around the Collection Development Policy. It calls for a “high quality collection” that reflects “the diversity of the community.” It calls for “adequacy of coverage in [all] subject area[s].”

It calls for a “varied and current collection covering a wide range of subjects and containing multiple points of view.” The policy calls upon the library to “deliver the broadest possible access to content …within … the library’s walls” and “to serve the Salem community by providing a broad choice of materials to meet informational, educational, cultural, and recreational needs.”

According to the policy, the collection will “embrace broad fields of knowledge with with basic representative works in most subject areas.” In summary, the policy affirms, “the Salem Public Library is committed to providing a broad and diverse collection."

 

There is concern from some members of the community about items being removed from the collection as part of implementation of this policy. 

 

In my professional opinion as the former State Librarian of Oregon the new Collection Development policy is not being implemented, it is being violated by the planned removal of many thousands of books (the exact number is in dispute) from the library core collection.

 

The mission of the Foundation is to financially support enhancements to the Library. We don't consider it our role to take a public position on the policy at the Library. 

 

Again, “policy” is not at issue, but the violation of policy. The violation of library policy by library staff — the removal of valuable and useful books from the core collection of the library — will no doubt seriously harm the ability of the Foundation to carry out its the mission to support the Library though voluntary donations from the community.

 

Judy Martin, Bob d'Entremont, Past President, and I would like you to review the message below from City Manager, Steve Powers and the Collection Development Policy https://www.cityofsalem.net/Pages/library-use-policies.aspx

 

These documents will give you the information you need to understand the Collection Development Policy, its processes and goals. This policy was developed over the last year by our professional librarians. It was modeled on other policies from around the country and customized to the Salem community based on the needs of the community. This policy was reviewed and approved by the Library Advisory Board and was approved by City Council this fall. 

 

While the public discourse unfolds, we will follow the story, gather information, then discuss the matter as a board at our next meeting, December 6, 5pm Heritage room.

 

My best,

Kate

Here's the message from City Manager Steve Powers, which Scheppke also has annotated in red. 

You may be receiving emails or seeing social media posts regarding the library and concerns with downsizing the collection. We will be putting this on the city web page.

Have you visited the Library lately? We’ve made some changes. More of your favorite books, movies, and music are easier to see and reach. Stop in and check us out! Can’t make it in this week? Check out our online resources: https://www.cityofsalem.net/library

Did you know there are best practices for managing library collections? We’re using data-driven, state-of-the-art systems to guide decisions about the collection to remove items that no longer circulate, items in poor condition, or outdated information (editions since superseded, or rapidly changing subject matter like the field of medicine). Managing the collection in this way frees up shelf space for new material, makes shelves easier to navigate, and identifies areas where we need to update or add new items. 

I challenge the assertion that the books that are now being removed en masse are books that no longer circulate, are in “poor condition” or have “outdated information.” Most of the books being removed do not fit this description. The library staff has been aggressively removing books that do fit this description for at least the past five years. In 2012-13 the library had a book collection totaling 394,358.*

That number declined every year in the next five years until by 2016-17 the total stood at 337,373. In each of those years more books were removed from the collection than were added. So why then does library management see the need now for a massive book removal program? The library collection has been well-maintained and it has not grown, it has shrunk.

Shelves may look more empty than usual while materials are being evaluated, replacements are being ordered, and items are being shifted. 

I have it on good authority that the library almost never replaces books that are removed from the collection. Our substandard budget for books and other library materials of just over $500,000 a year is not adequate to keep up with new publications, much less to replace books that have been removed. For comparison, the Eugene Public Library has a collection budget of nearly $1.3 million.

The Library’s Collection Development Policy ensures that discarded items are offered to the Friends of the Salem Public Library for resale, benefiting the Library’s collections and programs. A vibrant, current collection that meets the community’s needs also helps us get ready for the upcoming Library renovation project: http://bit.ly/SPLrenovation

The completion of the Library renovation project is still at least two years away. The work to design the interior space of the library has not even begun. It is premature to assume that the newly renovated library will have less capacity for books than at present. 

The pruning of the collection is guided by the collection development policy approved by City Council and the Library Advisory Board earlier this year. 

I strongly challenge the truth of this statement. It results from a very selective and false reading of the Council-approved policy. The policy calls for a“high quality collection” that reflects “the diversity of the community.” It calls for “adequacy of coverage in [all] subject area[s].” It calls for a “varied and current collection covering a wide range of subjects and containing multiple points of view.”

The policy calls upon the library to “deliver the broadest possible access to content …within … the library’s walls” and “to serve the Salem community by providing a broad choice of materials to meet informational, educational, cultural, and recreational needs.” “Pruning” the collection now by removing many thousands of books in the core collection is inconsistent with the policy. I believe it is a violation of the policy.

Per the policy, the Salem Public Library’s collection is a popular materials collection, with varied and current content on a range of subjects. The library’s collections are dynamic, with an emphasis on up-to-date and in-demand materials. In order to maintain a relevant, popular, and appealing collection, the library engages in ongoing evaluation and updating of owned materials. 

This is not what the policy says, taken as a whole. Yes, the library needs “popular materials.” All public libraries do (unlike academic and research libraries). But that does not imply that large public libraries like ours should not also have a core collection of less popular materials that in the words of the Collection Development Policy” provide “a broad choice of materials to meet the informational, educational and cultural” needs of the community.

This also insinuates that to date the library has not engaged “in ongoing evaluation and updating of owned materials.” It has, and very aggressively so. That is why the book collection has shrunk by nearly 57,000 items in recent years.

As part of the CCRLS cooperative, we have access to resource sharing through the consortium as well as access to the rest of the state through Interlibrary Loan. We rely on CCRLS to help us get materials for our patrons just as other members can use our materials. Ultimately, our collection’s purpose is to reflect the needs of the Salem community.

When CCRLS was founded over three decades ago, the idea was that the Salem Public Library would serve as the major resource library for the system and for many years SLP was compensated for this (I don’t know what the situation is today). All of the other libraries in CCRLS are much smaller with much smaller collections. The average book collection size in CCRLS (taking out SPL) is only 42,000 items. These CCRLS libraries can only afford to be “popular materials libraries” and they have relied on Salem to provide a broader and deeper collection. If I were a user of a CCRLS member library I would be very alarmed at the idea that SPL is now going to become just a “popular materials library” and renege on its decades old commitment to CCRLS.

Getting books through interlibrary loan is a terribly expensive process that most libraries try to avoid. When you add up the true cost of an interlibrary loan in staff time and postage, it costs nearly was much as buying the book. It is not the answer to satisfying a broad range of informational needs. The way to do that is with a quality core collection, such as Salem already has, if library management will just leave it alone.

There has been no directive to reduce the collection by 30%. The 30% figure was developed in consultation with the State Library of Oregon Data & Federal Programs Consultant Ross Fuqua and a statistical study of nationwide peer library physical collection size. Mr. Fuqua assisted the City in not only gathering statistics but also helping interpret and verify the findings. However, this figure is only a single data point for added context as we start the processing of renewing the collection on the foundation of the collection development policy.

I did my own analysis of how the size of the print collection at Salem Public Library compared with peer libraries. I made a comparison to five other city libraries of comparable size in Oregon: Eugene, Beaverton, Hillsboro, Corvallis and Tigard. 

This analysis shows that the print collection at SPL is 15% larger on average than the peer libraries. Beaverton and Hillsboro skew the average and it can be explained, I think, by the fact that they were established decades later than SPL and their collections are younger, and hence, smaller. This analysis does not show that SPL’s collection is oversized. It is about 50,000 items smaller than Eugene’s collection. I also did another version of this analysis to include e-books. When you do that, SPL’s collection is only 2% larger on average than its Oregon peers. 

I also did an analysis of print items per capita. In 2016-17 SPL had2.08print items per capita. This is actuallylessthan the median for all Oregon libraries serving more than 25,000 population of2.33So again, on this analysis, any claim that the print collection at SPL is oversized, and has not been well-maintained for currency and condition, is just not true.

Timing of the pruning is important as we begin planning for the renovation project.

Again, I strongly question this assertion. Completion of the project is at least two years away. The interior space at the library has not been designed yet. This is very premature.

Please let me know if you have questions or contact Sarah directly. We are responding to library customers who are raising concerns or questions regarding the collection.

Steve Powers
City Manager
City of Salem
Salem, Oregon

Conclusion: Management at the Salem Public Library has recklessly embarked on a book removal project that is in violation of the Council-approved collection development policy. It is based on bad data that apparently suggests that the book collection at the library is oversized and has been poorly maintained.

This is false. The library collection is not oversized. In fact it is smaller, on a per capita basis, than the median for other comparable Oregon libraries. If this project is being undertaken in anticipation of not being able to accommodate as many books in a renovated library facility, that assessment is premature. A design team has not even been hired yet and it will be their job to determine capacities in the renovated facility.

The book removal project needs to come to a halt so that the Library Advisory Board and perhaps even the Salem City Council can weigh in on whether many thousand of books representing the core collection of the library should be removed and made unavailable to present and future generations of library users.* All of the data used here comes from the State Library of Oregon.

* All of the data used here comes from the State Library of Oregon.

Library expert criticizes "core book" policy of Salem Public Library

Jim Scheppke knows a lot about libraries. He was the State Librarian of Oregon for two decades, and a librarian for 32 years.

He doesn't like that the Salem Public Library is removing tens of thousands of books from its core collection to make room for new, trendy books. 

Scheppke's opinion piece in today's Statesman Journal, "Preserve the core collection at Salem Public Library," struck me as well-written, nicely factual, and highly persuasive. 

Here's some excerpts:

At the beginning of October, the management staff at the Salem Public Library launched a project to permanently remove as many as 100,000 books from the collection that currently totals a little more than 300,000 books.

As a retired librarian, I have many acquaintances on the library staff andsoon began to hear their anguish at having to dismantle a collection that some of them have spent a good part of their careers building to serve our community.

Library collections are a labor of love. There are many books that could be added to a public library and never enough dollars in the book budget. That's why for centuries,  librarians have carefully and thoughtfully selected the best books with lasting value. What results is what librarians call a "core collection."It's what writer Susan Orlean called "a sort of cultural DNA, the code for who, as a society, we are, and what we know."

...So why did library management decide to remove books? City Librarian Sarah Strahl said  it was being done so the library could put "an emphasis on up-to-date and in-demand materials ... in order to maintain a relevant, popular, and appealing collection."

I don't find this answer satisfactory. Salem is one of the largest cities in Oregon and the capital of a state with some of the best public libraries in the country. Can't we afford a collection of popular, in-demand materials while maintaining the core collection that has been carefully built for more than a century?

Sure seems like we should be able to have both, a core collection and a more popular, in-demand collection.

Since Salem Public Library Director Sarah Strahl appears to show no sign of backing down from her crusade to drastically reduce the core collection, more public pressure needs to be put on her. I invite you to email Strahl and let her know how you feel about what she's doing. (email address is [email protected])

I've been involved with Jim Scheppke on a number of community issues. I find him to be eminently reasonable, always backing up what he has to say with solid evidence. In other words, he's exactly what one would expect from a soft-spoken but hard-hitting retired librarian.

If Library Director Strahl has some cogent responses to what Scheppke says in his opinion piece, and also in correspondence with Strahl that I shared in a previous blog post, I know that Scheppke will consider what she has to say with an open mind. (The photo above showing empty shelves after the book removal process had begun was sent to me by him.)

When I hear from Scheppke that he's reassured the core collection is getting the library love it deserves, I'll stop worrying about the future of the core collection. I say this as someone who has written three books, and has been planning to donate a copy of my book about Plotinus, "Return to the One," to the Salem Public Library.

Now, my book about the teachings of a 3rd century Neoplatonist Greek philosopher is a good example of a "core collection" book  with some mild "popular" overtones. Meaning, it's one of the easiest to read books about Plotinus, yet by no means light reading. 

I have boxes of scholarly books about Plotinus stored in the crawl space above our garage. Most are exceedingly dense, as is reading Plotinus directly via English translations of his Enneads. I'd love to give those books to the Salem Public Library, along with the book I wrote, but I'd like some assurance that the library both wants them, and will keep them.

During my lengthy research about Plotinus, I made a lot of use of interlibrary loans. It was great to learn about another Plotinus book that seemed interesting, then be able to get it from a library far from Salem. Many of the books I needed for my research were old, of interest to only a few people, and hard to find.

So libraries were a godsend. Or, in Plotinian terms, a Onesend (the One is the highest reality in his cosmology; early Christian theologians appropriated much of his thinking, but not his word for what many would call "God").

This helps explain why I liked Jim Scheppke's opinion piece so much, and why I hope Librarian Strahl reconsiders her decision to remove so many books from the Salem Public Library's core collection.

Third Bridge closer to death after tonight's City Council meeting

Observing via CCTV the Salem City Council debate tonight whether to move ahead with the Salem River Crossing, or Third Bridge, felt like I was watching a movie where you know the bad guy is going to be killed at some point, but you know that isn't going to happen until a lot of drama and close calls have built up the suspense.

Like I said yesterday in "Jim Lewis dreams the impossible Third Bridge dream," it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that Lewis' motion to have City staff respond to issues raised in a legal setback that remanded (sent back) the Council's 2016 approval of a new bridge was going to fail 5-4.

After all, the five progressive councilors are on record as opposing what I like to call the Billion Dollar Boondoggle. There's no way they were going to break their campaign promises and vote to move forward with the Salem River Crossing project. 

(Come January, their numbers will grow to six, when Jackie Leung replaces Steve McCoid on the City Council.)

What I wasn't sure about was whether the strategy of the No 3rd Bridge Five would be to give the Third Bridge the final death that it deserves at this meeting, or whether the death throes of the bridge would be strung out. It turned out to be the latter, since a substitute motion by Tom Andersen was approved after Lewis' motion failed.

Andersen's motion calls for the City Council to hold a work session on the Salem River Crossing in January 2019. Then the consensus seemed to be that either a vote on the legal remand would happen at the next Council meeting, or perhaps in February.

This seems to be a smart move. 

If the five progressives had killed the bridge project tonight, that would have looked a lot like a football team running up the score in the fourth quarter when they were already way ahead. Bad form. Tonight lots of people testified in favor of a Third Bridge. Emotions ran high.

So what Tom Andersen and Cara Kaser talked about was having a work session to review all of the materials related to the Salem River Crossing prior to voting whether to address the issues in the remand.

If the City Council votes against addressing those issues, the Third Bridge apparently will be dead -- Lewis said that if the City of Salem doesn't handle the remand issue by September 2019, the project will be shut down, since a draft Environmental Impact Statement needed to move the project forward requires that all approvals be obtained by that time.

(I'm pretty sure the date was September 2019. It might be earlier.)

The January work session will give both supporters and opponents of the Salem River Crossing on the City Council a forum to put forth their best arguments to either keep the project alive, or kill it.

My bet is that it will end up being killed, since opponents have by far the better arguments.

As Kaser pointed out tonight, likely there is a need for another bridge across the Willamette. However, the current Third Bridge plan is for a very expensive regional bridge aimed largely at speeding traffic through Salem to Portland, the coast, and such, rather than a local bridge aimed at reducing rush hour congestion between West Salem and downtown.

And Kaser also observed that Salem residents would be expected to foot most of the bill for a Third Bridge, even though it would be a regional bridge, not a local bridge.

Lewis seemed to see the handwriting on the wall after his motion failed.

Mayor Bennett did his best to put a positive spin on the approval of Andersen's substitute motion, but as the saying goes, this was just putting lipstick on a pig. The No 3rd Bridge Five, who are soon to become the No 3rd Bridge Six, have the power on the City Council.

They will use the January work session to put forward some excellent reasons why the Salem River Crossing project should be killed. Then, at a subsequent City Council meeting, almost certainly it will be.

Lastly, I believe it was Tom Andersen who reminded his fellow city councilors of what happened in December 2016, when five conservative members of the City Council voted to more the project forward by approving an Urban Growth Boundary expansion the month before three newly elected progressives were going to join the Council. 

I wrote about this in "Third Bridge sadly staggers on in pathetic City Council meeting." Excerpt:

Tonight five clueless members of the Salem City Council voted to move ahead with the unneeded, unwanted, and unpaid-for Third Bridge, a.k.a. the Salem River Crossing. 

...Now, one would think that this City Council meeting would be a joyous occasion for supporters of the Salem River Crossing. It marked a step forward for the Third Bridge. Yet exactly nobody spoke in favor of it at the public hearing (which wasn't very public, because nobody other than city councilors could speak during it).

I saw downcast eyes and morose expressions from the Billion Dollar Boondoggle Five.

City Manager Steve Powers also didn't look very happy, perhaps because I suspect he agrees with much, if not all, of what Councilor Tom Andersen said in his animated six minute explanation of why he was voting NO on the Urban Growth Boundary expansion needed to accommodate the Salem River Crossing bridgeheads. 

Below you'll find a video of Andersen's remarks. I urge you to watch it. This was a great example of the proverbial speaking truth to power.  

I especially liked his oh-so-true observation that the City Council was rushing to get a vote on the UGB expansion before the end of the year because three newly elected city councilors who are against the Third Bridge, and said so in their campaigns, will take office in 2017.

So the vote tonight was a last gasp attempt by the Chamber of Commerce-backed councilors -- Bennett, McCoid, Nanke, Lewis, Bednarz -- to kiss up to the Powers That Be in this town. They used special interest money to get elected, and they paid back those special interests with their "yes" votes for the Billion Dollar Boondoggle.

Jim Lewis dreams the impossible Third Bridge dream

Ah, so cute! I find it adorable how some people -- in this case, a Salem City Councilor, Jim Lewis -- imagine that they can do something that seems impossible. 

Like, fly by flapping their arms. Or make their cat do tricks. Or... get the City Council to vote in favor of moving ahead with a Third Bridge, a.k.a. the Salem River Crossing, at a council meeting tomorrow (Monday, November 26).

Lewis was narrowly re-elected last May as the city councilor for Ward 8 in West Salem.

He ran a sleazy campaign, wrongly claiming that his opponent, Micki Varney, wanted "miserable traffic" because while Varney supported a Third Bridge, she wasn't sufficiently crazed about the issue as Lewis, correctly arguing that other ways of reducing rush hour congestion in the downtown area could be implemented more quickly and at a much lower cost than by building a billion dollar new bridge (likely cost with financing costs included).

So now Lewis has asked the City Council to address a motion, shown above, that is on the agenda of the November 26 City Council meeting. The print is rather small, so here's what the motion says.

I move that City Council direct staff to prepare an ordinance and all other necessary land use actions to respond to the issues raised in LUBA’s remand of the City’s UGB expansion decision concerning the Salem River Crossing. The ordinance and other actions shall be presented for City Council’s consideration prior to June 2019. 

My prediction is that while Lewis must feel that he has to attempt to get the City Council to move forward with the Salem River Crossing, since this was his #1 campaign promise, this motion is going to backfire on him.

Currently five of the nine members of the City Council are on record as opposing a Third Bridge. It is decidedly unlikely that any of them are going to become a Third Bridge backer at tomorrow's meeting. 

Up to now, there's been an uneasy truce between those five progressives (Tom Andersen, Cara Kaser, Sally Cook, Chris Hoy, Matt Ausec) and the four council members who favor a Third Bridge (Chuck Bennett, Brad Nanke, Steve McCoid, Jim Lewis). The five progressives could have filed a motion to kill City of Salem support for a Third Bridge, but they've chosen not to do so.

Lewis' motion, though, forces the issue before another Third Bridge opponent, Jackie Leung, replaces Steve McCoid on the City Council in January.

Thus there's a good chance that when the motion comes up for a vote, the City Council will go on record as opposing further work on the Salem River Crossing. This will leave a draft Environmental Impact Statement dead in the water, as described in a Salem Reporter story, "Third bridge to return to city council Monday."

Salem Councilor Jim Lewis hopes to keep the prospect of the Salem River Crossing alive next week by asking councilors to give the state information needed to move the project forward.

Lewis will ask Salem City Council to direct staff to answer concerns raised a year ago by the state Land Use Board of Appeals. Without answers, state transportation officials say they are unable to complete a sweeping environmental analysis.

...Lewis said he is acting because of deadlines set by the Federal Highway Administration, millions of dollars from which have already been spent on the Salem River Crossing.

Those federal dollars flow through Oregon Department of Transportation and the Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study and have so far paid $8 million for feasibility studies, according to Dan Fricke, a senior transportation planner with ODOT.

Both local entities say they are worried that if the project doesn’t advance by September 2019, the federal agency will ask for its money back.

Well, the feds should get their money back, because it's pretty damn clear that the Salem River Crossing project has been poorly planned from the outset.

I like to call it the Billion Dollar Boondoggle, because there is no evidence that it would do much, if anything, to reduce rush-hour congestion, and local residents would be asked to foot most of the bill for the bridge through tolls on both the new bridge and the two existing bridges, a gas tax, and higher vehicle registration fees.


Nonetheless, the Salem Bridge Solutions "green shirts" will be out in force at tomorrow's City Council meeting, dreaming the impossible dream in Jim Lewis' motion. Above is a screenshot of a Salem Bridge Solutions Facebook post. 

By contrast, the No 3rd Bridge Facebook page hasn't been updated since December 11, 2017. In a final post, the No 3rd Bridge folks declared victory. I suspect it will turn out that they were right. But nothing is 100% certain, so there's a slim chance the Salem River Crossing will survive a City Council vote. Repeat, slim chance. 

Here's a screenshot of the No 3rd Bridge victory post.

Salem Public Library removing 30% of print book collection. Resistance is mounting.

Trigger warning: if you love books, and hate to see them mistreated, you might want to partially cover your eyes when viewing the photo below. I'm sorry that this blog post has to be so graphic, but as the saying goes, A picture is worth a thousand words.

(And this post is much longer than that.)

Jim Scheppke, a community activist and ardent library supporter, worked for the Oregon State Library for 25 years, 20 of them as library director (this is the library for the State of Oregon, not the Oregon State University library). Today he sent me this photo, along with other information I'm sharing below.

This is how he described the photo of shelves at the Salem Public Library. Again, this is explicit language that may bring tears to the eyes of book lovers. But the truth must be told.

Red Alert Brian! 

At the direction of the City Librarian, librarians have been discarding many hundreds of books since the beginning of October. She disputes that she told the librarians to discard 30% (see below), but according to my sources that was how the instruction was interpreted. 

Here is the beginning of the Dewey non-fiction ranges just after the evil deed was done (they may have spread things out by now). They started at the 000s and have been through the 100s (including Philosophy) and 200s (including Religion). Here is what one range looked like when they were done.

Because I figure that anyone who has read this far is a book lover, so is accustomed to reading words that far exceed what's on Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram, instead of trying to summarize the Battle of the Books between Scheppke and the director of the Salem Public Library, Sarah Strahl, I'm going to share verbatim the Scheppke-Strahl correspondence, plus some messages that Scheppke sent to me.

I've boldfaced portions of what follows that seem particularly pertinent -- in case I've overestimated the willingness of  some viewers of this blog post to read the whole thing, and they only want to read the especially juicy parts.

First, here's the message that outraged library advocate Scheppke sent to City Librarian Strahl. 

Dear City Librarian Strahl:

Aside from working with Judy Martin to lead the winning library bond measure campaign a couple years ago, I have tried to steer clear of involving myself in issues concerning your library. However, it recently came to my attention that library staff was told in a staff meeting at the end of September that they were directed to withdraw books from the library print collection totaling 30% of the entire collection. 

 

I am very alarmed by this and think it is bad decision for many reasons. I am prepared to advocate strongly to reverse this decision, but first I wanted to give you the opportunity to tell me that I am mistaken about this. I would be relieved to be mistaken. But if I am not mistaken, I would like to know as a Salem citizen whether this bad decision to discard 30% of the print collection was approved by the Library Advisory Board. I would also like to hear an explanation of why the administrative staff at the library feels it is necessary to reduce the library print collection in this radical way.

 

If indeed the SPL is in the process of discarding 30% of the library print collection, I find this to be an clear violation of the recently Council-adopted Collection Development Policy that states:  "The library provides information resources in physical and electronic formats in an effort to deliver the broadest possible access to content both within and beyond the library’s walls. The primary responsibility of the Salem Public Library is to serve the Salem community by providing a broad choice of materials to meet informational, educational, cultural, and recreational needs" (emphasis mine).

 

My opinion is that the library print collection is not too big. On a per capita basis using the most recent data from the State Library for 2016-17, the Salem Public Library holds print items equalling 2.08 print items per capita. I think this figure is overstated because the State Library uses the Salem city population as the service area population. You and I know the service area population of the Salem Public Library is really a lot larger because of all the CCRLS cardholders.

 

Anyway, even using the State Library figures, a collection of 2.08 per capita is below the median for all Oregon public libraries serving populations over 25,000 (27 of them) of 2.33 per capita. If the print collection were reduced by 100,000 the per capita print collection would fall to only 1.46 per capita. This would make it the 4th smallest collection per capita of all Oregon public libraries serving populations greater than 25,000.

 

There are other ways I could argue that our print collection is not too large and should not be reduced by 30% (or at all), but I will stop here and respectfully request that you address the three questions above: 1) Am I mistaken about this? 2) Did the LAB approve a 30% reduction? and 3) For what reasons is this being done?

 

I will look forward to hearing from you.

 

Jim

Next, here's a message Scheppke sent me that contains statistics to back up his assertion that it is wrong to claim that the Salem Public Library has, on average, 30% more print books than peer libraries.

Brian:

To follow up on the email I just sent, the core claim of the City Librarian that is motivating the book removal project is that the library has 30% more books on average that its peer libraries. I did my own analysis of this and it is simply not true. The data here is the latest from the State Library …

 

 

The real number is half of what the City Librarian is going on. And if you add e-books held by these libraries to print books, SPL only has 2% more books that the average for these libraries. So the book removal project has no basis. There is no reason for it.

 

The library is throwing away books that belong to us. I think they have a fetish for a bright and shiny collection, and they don’t want to have to move the books when they move out for the renovation. Those are not sufficient reasons for what is taking place.

 

Jim

Fighting words! (For a librarian, at least.) 

I also received some background information from Scheppke that he didn't want me to share directly. You know, sensitive "sources and methods" stuff, if you've been following intelligence agency goings-on involving the U.S. Congress.

Suffice it to say that according to high, medium, or low-level sources within the Salem Public Library, or maybe somewhere else -- don't want to be more specific than that -- there's reason to question the assertion you can read below by City Librarian Strahl that staff weren't given a clear directive to cull at least 30% of print books from the library's collection.

I will quote the following part of Scheppke's message that is shareable:

What the City Librarian seems to be going for is a “popular materials library,” kind of like a bookstore, but without a “core” of the classics and the canon of our civilization and others.

 

In the past our library had both a core collection and popular materials (sometimes multiple copies) that were removed after a few years when their popularity waned. Maybe because money is tight, she feels, we can no longer afford to have both. I think this is a huge disservice to the community. Call me old-fashioned but I think it’s essential that public libraries provide a place of intellectual discovery in a collection that is broad and deep. To have this and to get rid of it makes no sense.

 

Here is another factoid for you. Our library has already be removing books at a rapid pace for the past five years. Here are statistics for the print collection for the past five years:

 

16-17 337,373

 

15-16 341,088

 

14-15 360,969

 

13-14 370,522

 

12-13 394,358

OK. That's Scheppke's side of the story. Here's how City Librarian Strahl responded to his initial message.

Dear Jim:

 

Thank you for your question about our collection policy. You asked about whether there was a directive in place to reduce the collection by 30%. There is no reference to a percentage in the library’s Collection Development Policy or in any specific instructions to staff.

 

I reviewed the minutes from the September 27, 2018 staff meeting you reference (which were shared in writing with all staff), and they say: “SPL collection is 30% larger on average than peer libraries. Sarah clarified that this does not mean that SPL staff will be asked to weed 30% of the collection. This figure gives perspective on collection size and that other criteria will guide any weeding that occurs (condition, use, etc.).”

 

The 30% figure in question was developed in consultation with the State Library of Oregon Data & Federal Programs Consultant Ross Fuqua and a statistical study of nationwide peer library physical collection size. Mr. Fuqua assisted SPL staff in not only gathering statistics but also helping interpret and verify the findings. However, this figure is only a single data point for added context as we start the processing of renewing the collection on the foundation of the Collection Development Policy.

 

The Library Advisory Board (LAB) recommends rules and policies to Salem City Council. The LAB members unanimously approved the library’s Collection Development Policy on August 8, 2018 with the intent to create a vibrant, current collection that reflects the community’s needs and current use patterns. City Council also lauded the newly-created policy. Collection maintenance is incredibly important work that is part of our greater overarching goal of having a modern, renewed library for the residents of the City of Salem. Our focus is on the collection’s quality and ability to serve the needs of the Salem community now and far into the future.

 

Per the policy, the Salem Public Library’s collection is a popular materials collection, with varied and current content on a range of subjects. The library’s collections are dynamic, with an emphasis on up-to-date and in-demand materials. In order to maintain a relevant, popular, and appealing collection, the library engages in ongoing evaluation and updating of owned materials. 

 

The library uses best practices and industry-standard tools to make data-driven decisions about the collection. While working within the framework set out in the Collection Development Policy, we use the CREW method (a national best practice developed by the Texas State Library) to evaluate the collection which allows us to strive to maintain a collection that is vital, relevant and useful.

 

We also use a product called CollectionHQ, which gives us use metrics, turnover rates, and identifies under- and over-stocked subject areas.  With these outlined methods and derived data, we can identify items that no longer circulate, items in poor condition, and outdated information in areas of rapid change such as medicine. We also look for superseded editions, excess copies of previous bestsellers, and worn copies that need to be mended or replaced.

 

In addition to renewing the collection, this type of collection maintenance also frees up shelf space for the constant arrival of new material, provides ease of access to desired materials, and identifies areas where we need to update or add new items.

 

In preparation for the upcoming renovation project and in order to be good stewards of public funds, it is crucial that the library takes a comprehensive look at the entire collection before moving out. This will ensure only current materials in good condition and in demand by our community are moved with the library.

 

As part of the CCRLS cooperative, we have access to resource sharing through the consortium as well as access to the rest of the state through Interlibrary Loan. We rely on CCRLS to help us get materials for our patrons just as other consortial members can use our materials. Ultimately, our collection’s purpose is to reflect the needs of the Salem community.

 

Sarah Strahl

City Librarian

With the book-ball back in Scheppke's side of the court, here's how he responded to Strahl. 

Dear Sarah,

Thank you for this information. I am presently on vacation in Northern Thailand, so I cannot respond to everything in your lengthy email.

 

However, I must point out that the Salem Public Library does not have 30% more print items than your peer libraries in Oregon. The data that you received from the State Library is either mistaken or out of date. Here is my analysis of data from the State Library for 2016-17 that shows that the print items at Salem Public Library are, on average, only 15% greater than your peer libraries:

 

The impression I received from my contacts with librarians on your staff is that they interpreted their instructions as directing them to begin a book removal project roughly equal to 30% of the print collection. I have seen photos of the low end of the Dewey range that show many empty shelves already. I am checking with my contacts (not on their work time) to investigate this discrepancy.

 

In any case, because the book removal project was based on bad or erroneous data, I respectfully ask that it be suspended immediately until there can be a reevaluation of the data that led to your decision to begin this project. I am prepared to take other steps to put a halt to the project if necessary.

 

Jim

OOH! I like that last sentence. It's pleasingly ominous, without being in-your-face attacking. After all, Scheppke used the words "I respectfully ask..." in the preceding sentence. 

This Battle of the Books between Scheppke and Strahl is intense, but since they're both librarians, it's polite -- at least compared to other sorts of political/policy battles at the local, state, and national levels.

(Note: if you've read all the way through this post, congratulations! You've just read 2,344 words. I wish I could give you a sticker that says "I read a REALLY LONG blog post today. Have you?")

Downtown Streetscape plan suffers from Salem's parking space mania

I'm no mental health professional, but I'm prepared to diagnose a malady that is rampant in Salem: parking space mania. Some of the symptoms are:

-- Feeling that something is seriously wrong if it isn't possible to park in a downtown block where your intended destination is located.

-- Driving in circles around downtown looking for an on-street parking space even though a totally free parking structure with plenty of open spaces is close by. 

-- Freaking out at the prospect that any number, even just a few, of on-street downtown parking spaces will be lost, even if this would make the Historic District more attractive and vibrant.

I bring this up because I went to another Downtown Streetscape open house this evening. I've been to the previous open houses, and the notice for the one both intrigued and worried me.

Intrigued, because I was curious about what changes had been made to the concepts that seemingly were in close to final form last April, when I made a web page about them. See:

Worried, because as indicated by the language circled in red in the open house invitation, some unnamed "stakeholders" had a chance to weigh in on the Streetscape plan over the summer. I don't like that term, stakeholders, since I consider that the citizens of Salem are the ones with the biggest stake in every policy issue, including how downtown looks and feels.

I've gotten mixed messages as to who ended up influencing the refinements to the original Streetscape plan recommended by consultants. City Public Works staff reportedly had a say in this. I suppose this makes sense, though I wonder why they didn't provide their input during the lengthy period of public input on draft Streetscape proposals.

Tonight the team of consultants revealed what has been left out of the final design proposals I described in my web page. I wouldn't call these "refinements," but rather selling out to the above-mentioned parking space mania -- since I was told that concerns about losing on-street parking spaces led to the changes above.

They're delicately called "Longer-Term Projects."

What this really means is that the above-mentioned stakeholders, which I suspect includes some parking-space-crazed downtown businesses, put enough pressure on City officials to get the Mid-Block Landscape Pockets, Front Street Crossing, and Parklets Program shelved.

The frustrating thing is that each of these Streetscape design elements makes great good sense. 

Look at the photos of how much better Commercial Street, and also Liberty Street, would look if a couple of parking spaces were used for bulb-out landscaping that would calm traffic (without diminishing the width of traffic lanes) while beautifying the street. 

Likewise, the Parklets Program would utilize a few parking spaces in creative ways, either temporarily or permanently. But somehow parking space mania outweighed the benefits of making downtown Salem a more attractive place to work, live, dine, and shop.

The consultants told me that because Front Street is a state highway, it would take more time to improve pedestrian crossings between downtown and Riverfront Park. But this doesn't explain why those crossings have been removed from the Streetscape plan.

Gosh, would it really be so bad if parents, children, and other living beings were able to walk more safely and conveniently across Front Street to enjoy Riverfront Park, while maybe slowing traffic on that street down a little bit? 

There's no doubt that however the Streetscape project turns out, it will make downtown more attractive. It just is disappointing to see the aspirations for this project diminished due to input from unnamed "stakeholders."

Hopefully the City Council, acting as the Urban Renewal Agency board, will seriously consider reinstating the Longer-Term Projects as immediate priorities. The schedule above shows this could happen on February 19, 2019.

Sunday's Statesman Journal had zero local content on opinion page

Salem's one and only daily newspaper, the Statesman Journal, is falling deeper into a well of mediocrity.

The newest outrage against journalistic excellence was obvious in yesterday's Sunday paper where, for the first time in the 41 years that I've been reading the Statesman Journal, to my recollection, there was precisely zero local content on the opinion pages. 

A post on the Salem Community Vision Facebook page nailed the outrageousness of this:

NO LOCAL OPINION IN THE SUNDAY PAPER
Charles Sprague is turning in his grave today. When he was the editor of the Oregon Statesman he wrote a daily editorial that appeared on the front page of the paper for 25 years. Today the Statesman Journal could not even manage to print one opinion piece by a local author. No staff editorial. No guest opinion. Not even a letter to the editor. Pathetic. The Statesman staff should be ashamed. They've hit a new low.

I too was struck by the absurdity of no local opinions in the first Sunday paper published after the midterm elections. Instead, there were five pieces by national writers, plus four editorial cartoons.

Further, there is no longer an editorial board, just two Statesman Journal staff members who, apparently, are staffing a nonexistent editorial board. (Easy job.)

Hopefully local content on the opinion page will spring back to life before too long. I'm a big fan of opinions, in part because I'm so prone to holding them myself. Along with, of course, almost everybody else in Salem. We all have opinions, and an important role of a newspaper is to provide a forum for them.

I'm not particularly concerned about the lack of a Statesman Journal editorial board.

It was a wise decision for the paper to not make any endorsements in the midterm elections, but rather to publish pieces by rival candidates side by side. Or, singly, if one of the candidates chose not to write a piece. 

There's really no reason now for newspapers to make political endorsements, assuming there ever was. The Internet allows people to have all the information that editorial boards are privy to, and it is more than a little condescending for newspaper employees to consider that they have a special right, or duty, to tell everybody else how to vote.

But I do enjoy reading letters to the editor and opinion pieces about local issues. For example, City Councilor Tom Andersen has made a reasonable proposal that councilors be paid, which would encourage more people to run for the City Council. But Mayor Chuck Bennett hates the idea.

So I'd like to read dueling opinion pieces by Andersen and Bennett on this subject. Along with letters to the editor taking one side or the other.

I'm finding that the new journalistic kid in town, the totally online Salem Reporter, is making it a bit difficult for me to feel close to this Salem news source. I have to remember to visit the web site each day, whereas the Statesman Journal appears at the end of our driveway every morning.

(Well, most mornings.)

Some days there aren't any new Salem Reporter stories. On the plus side, all of the stories are local, or about state government, whereas the Statesman Journal has a lot of USA Today and national content that isn't of much interest to me. I subscribe to the online versions of the Washington Post and New York Times, plus I browse Politico, Google News, and such.

And so far the Salem Reporter doesn't have an opinion section, nor any way for subscribers to comment on stories. Both of these absences are turn-offs for me, though I feel like I'm getting my money's worth from the $100 annual subscription that I signed up for soon after Salem Reporter announced its presence in our town.

UPDATE: Almost forgot to mention that the current Statesman Journal Monday-Sunday home delivery rate is $62/month, which is up from $46/month in June 2017. So that's a 35% increase in a bit less than a year and a half, which is, um, a LOT greater than the overall inflation rate.

My suspicion is that the Statesman Journal's corporate masters at Gannett are trying to squeeze as much money as possible out of subscribers before the paper ceases print publication next year -- and perhaps shuts down altogether. Meanwhile, us subscribers are paying more for crappier content.

Midterm election's meaning revealed by Ed Dover at Salem City Club

There's lots of ways to look at the results of last Tuesday's midterm election. But some ways are wrong -- like the attempt by Republicans to spin the election as a GOP win.


Today Ed Dover spoke the truth about the midterms at an engrossing Salem City Club presentation, "Patterns and Meanings of the 2018 National, Oregon, and Mid-Valley Elections." Dover is a retired Professor Emeritus at the Western Oregon University Department of Political Science and Public Administration.

This was Dover's 10th post-election talk to the Salem City Club.

I've heard a bunch of them. Dover has an astounding grasp of political details. He rattles off a rash of numbers, results, statistics, and such without ever checking his notes -- unless he's got an extra set of eyes that were hidden from view.

He started off by telling us that he prefers to focus on the House of Representatives, since all the House members are elected every two years, the number of people in each district is about the same, and it is a national election. The Senate and Governor races, by contrast, don't provide nearly as good an indicator of the nation's political mood.

Dover figures that the Democrats will pick up 35 seats in the House.

This is a conservative estimate since FiveThirtyEight projects a 37 seat gain. In the Senate, the Democrats had to defend 26 seats and the Republicans only nine. Still, Republicans are expected to gain only 1-3 seats.

(FiveThirtyEight predicts two, which will happen if the Arizona Senate race goes to the Democrat, who is leading at the moment, and if the Florida Senate race goes to the Republican, which seems likely, even with a recount.)

Democrats gained seven Governor seats, which brings them almost up to even with Republicans. Currently there are 23 Democratic Governors, 26 Republican Governors, and one race too close to call (Georgia). 

This was a core message from Dover: it no longer makes sense to speak of "red states and blue states" (assuming it ever did). Rather, the Big Political Divide is between the suburbs and rural areas. All 38 House seats that Democrats flipped in the midterms were suburban districts.

The Dems lost three seats in rural areas, leaving them with Dover's estimated 35 seat gain, with several races undecided.

Politics, Dover said, follows Newton's Third Law: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This leads to periodic realignments of the political landscape. The suburbs turning leftward, toward the Democrats, is the realignment much in evidence now. 

Most of the 38 House districts flipped by Democrats were in the further out suburbs.

After his talk, Dover answered questions. One person asked why the Democrats didn't pick up any urban House seats, since big cities lean leftward. His (obvious) answer: those districts already are in the Democratic camp, and rural areas are strongly Republican, so the suburbs became the battlefield that Democrats won in the midterms.

Twenty-one of the 38 House seats flipped by Democrats were won by women. Even more, women dominated in volunteering for campaigns and donating money. College-educated women were especially prone to vote Democratic in the midterms. Why? Because they are repulsed by Trump and they care deeply about health care.

By contrast, the GOP has been pandering to the NRA and religious right, while being anti-immigrant and climate change deniers.

The same pattern, Dover said, has been evident in Oregon.

The suburbs have led to Oregon House Democrats picking up nine seats in the last four elections, with a net gain of eight seats. This year the Dems won three more seats -- women in the suburbs. Democrats are likely to keep those suburban seats, Dover said, citing Paul Evans as an example. 

After the 2020 census, Oregon is expected to pick up an extra House seat (with West Virginia losing one). This seat will be in western Oregon. The boundaries of Oregon legislative seats also will change, with fewer seats in eastern Oregon. 

Dover said that Democrats now have won 10 races for Governor in a row, even though Knute Buehler almost ran as a Democrat.

Regarding the statewide ballot measures, where all but the affordable housing measure failed, Dover observed that it is typical for the Pro side to spend money early, then run out of money late, when the Con side increases its spending.

Looking ahead to the 2020 presidential race, Texas, Georgia, and Arizona are close to becoming "majority minority" states, as California is now. Dover observed that Democrats got 48% in both the Texas Senate race and Georgia Governor race, and in Arizona the Democratic Senate candidate is leading.

So Democrats are going to have a wider political playing field in the next presidential election.

In responding to questions, one of which I asked, Dover said:

-- When it comes to recounts, and voting generally, too many states are using 19th century technology, like punch cards. Counties have to pay for elections, and many are broke. So states and the federal government should pay for modernizing voting.

-- Florida is a strange state, as is Ohio. Their demographics are more important politically than who the Governor is. In various parts of Florida, you can find demographics similar to the Deep South, the Caribbean, Midwest, and East Coast -- because these parts attract people who move to Florida from those places.

-- The infamous "caravan" is being driven by people in central America impacted by climate change, as well as drug violence.

-- Though the Electoral College makes little sense, and is undemocratic (small population states get more votes per capita than large population states), nothing will change until Republicans lose a couple of presidential elections where they won the popular vote, as has happened to Democrats twice recently (Al Gore and Hillary Clinton).

-- Same-day voter registration doesn't make much of a difference, since people who fail to register weeks or months before an election probably won't register the day of an election.

-- MY QUESTION: Why are so many elections so darn close? Like almost 50-50. Does this have something to do with the action-reaction thing? Dover said that incumbents are hard to beat, but I didn't find this answer very satisfying, though it was true. After I asked it, a man sitting in front of me turned around and showed me what he'd written in his notebook: "Evolution."

Naturally I was curious about what he meant, so I spoke with him after Dover finished. 

His idea is that we humans need each other, and we need variety -- like both liberals and conservatives. So the political pendulum swings back and forth, leftward and rightward, often landing right in the middle in races. In general, this makes sense to me.

I also like the action-reaction explanation, which fits with a pendulum analogy. When things go too far in one direction, like the crazy conservatism of Donald Trump, there's a desire among Americans to get things more in balance. As is well known, this typically happens in midterms, with the party that doesn't hold the presidency picking up seats in Congress. 

Neighbors appeal Costco shopping center

Good news. The headline of a Salem Reporter story says, "Neighborhood appeal puts Kuebler Gateway Shopping Center on Hold." Here's how the story starts out:

Costco’s road to a new location in south Salem is not over after neighbors appealed the city’s recent decision to allow the Kuebler Gateway Shopping Center. The appeals trigger what could be months of more deliberation.

The South Gateway Neighborhood Association, and three neighbors acting on their own through an attorney, cited a number of reasons why Salem planners should not have approved the nearly 200,000-square-foot project in late October.

They contend the shopping center project grew over the years into something incompatible with the area, that the city relied on a flawed traffic analysis, that it threatens to uproot protected trees and that it will pollute the nearby air and water.

Attorney Karl Anuta’s appeal on behalf of the three neighbors — Lora Meisner, William Dalton and John D. Miller —  also claims the city didn’t disclose the pertinent documents before its decision and argues “the public was likely misled.”

I like to see people in Salem standing up against development that threatens their neighborhood's livability. Growth is going to happen. But it needs to be smart growth, not dumb growth.

Plunking a giant Costco Big Box store, complete with a high traffic fueling station, right next to a residential area is dumb. Hopefully the City Council will hear the neighbors' appeal of the City of Salem's approval of the Kuebler Gateway Shopping Center and make things right.

The appeals and City approval document can be read here.

Progressives, here's some cheerful midterm election commentaries

In a Washington Post piece I read today, I saw a saying: "Republicans are naturally triumphal even when they lose and Democrats tend to get depressed even when they win."

This seems generally true.

But like I said last night, I'm pleased with how the midterm election turned out. Sure, it was distressing to see Andrew Gillum, Stacey Abrams, and Beto O'Rourke fail to win their races. But here in Oregon we enjoyed a genuine Blue Wave, and Democrats taking control of the House of Representatives is a really big deal. 

FiveThirtyEight.com is projecting a gain of 37 House seats, which is impressively close to their pre-election forecast of Democrats getting an average gain of 39 House seats.

Plus, even though currently Democrats are down three Senate seats -- Republicans flipped North Dakota, Indiana, Florida, and Missouri, while the Dems flipped Nevada -- there's a lot of votes left to be counted in Arizona, so there's a decent chance that Sinema could overcome McSally's lead, which would reduce the Democrat net loss to two. That'd be a good outcome for the Dems, given how many seats they had to defend in Trump territory. 

But this barely scratches the surface of the progressive wonderful'ness that marked yesterday's midterm results.

Here's links, and an excerpt from each, of informed commentary I came across today that should cheer up anyone who believes the Democrats didn't fare very well in the midterms.

First, an encouraging tweet from Nate Silver. It shows that if a presidential election happened with which party won the popular midterm vote in each state, the Democrat would have won the presidency with 314 electoral votes. Great news for 2020! 

Then there's a way-cool New York Times analysis of how the vote in each congressional district changed in comparison to 2016. A blue arrow pointing left, not surprisingly, indicates a shift toward the Democratic party. A red arrow pointing right indicates a shift toward the Republican party. The length of the arrow shows the degree of the shift.

The online story has some animations to it, plus some additional maps. Keep in mind that the story says only 30 districts actually flipped from red to blue (so far). This image only shows the direction of the shift: several dozen districts became more Republican, while 317 districts shifted toward the Democrats. 

For us progressive Oregonians, the marked blue shift in eastern Oregon is encouraging. Even though Republican Greg Walden won re-election, his Democrat opponent did much better than Clinton did in 2016. 

Greg Sargent, a Washington Post opinion writer, said this in "Three of Trump's biggest fables died last night."

The 2018 elections are being widely painted as a “split decision” for President Trump — Democrats won the House while losing seats in the Senate — but this framing actually undercuts just how much there is for Democrats and progressives to celebrate about the results.

Three of the biggest narratives driving our politics now lie in ruins, and their deaths carry important implications for the future of the Trump presidency, public opinion in the Trump era, and the character of our country.

Trump has magical political powers, and his lies are “working.”...Democrats have no answer to the nationalist backlash...Democrats can’t assemble a multi-racial majority to confront Trumpism.

Paul Waldman, also with the Washington Post, wrote "Yes, it was a wave. Here are all the other ways progressives won." I'll quote it at some length, given how positive it is.

There’s a strange character to the post-election analyses of the moment, in which a wave election for Democrats where they won back the House of Representatives is being characterized as something like half a win. That’s partly because a number of dynamic young Democrats who had raised perhaps unreasonable hopes for victory fell short, but it’s also because Republicans are naturally triumphal even when they lose and Democrats tend to get depressed even when they win.

So in order to put the election in perspective, I’d like to widen our gaze beyond a few Senate and House races and look at some of the other results, particularly at the state level. When you do that, you see that Democrats have an awful lot to be happy about even beyond taking the House. Let’s break it down.

Democrats won in key governor’s races. While much of the attention was focused on the campaigns of Andrew Gillum in Florida and Stacey Abrams in Georgia, both of which fell just short (though Abrams still hopes to force her opponent into a runoff), Democrats won a bunch of key governor’s races around the country. They flipped seven seats: Nevada, New Mexico, Kansas, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and Maine.

...Democrats won big in state legislatures. You’ve probably heard that over the eight years Barack Obama was president, Democrats lost a net of almost a thousand seats in state legislatures. Which is bad, but last night Democrats gained about 300 seats, so they’re well on their way to reversing those losses.

...Democratic women won everywhere. As of now, 95 women have won or are projected to win seats in the House, 82 of whom are Democrats. That includes the first two Muslim American women and the first two Native American women; a record number of women of color will be serving in the next Congress.

...Americans’ health care won big. Voters in the conservative states of Idaho, Nebraska and Utah passed ballot initiatives to accept the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of Medicaid, which will bring coverage to hundreds of thousands of their citizens.

...Voting rights and democratic reforms were expanded. Voters in Michigan passed initiatives that will turn over redistricting to a nonpartisan commission and allow for automatic voter registration, same-day registration, no-excuse absentee voting, and straight-ticket voting. Voters in Colorado and probably Utah (votes are still being tallied) approved nonpartisan redistricting commissions, Nevadans approved automatic voter registration, and Maryland voters approved same-day registration.

...Other progressive ballot measures won. A strong gun safety measurepassed in Washington state. Michigan voters legalized recreational marijuana, and medical marijuana was approved in Missouri, Oklahoma and Utah. Voters in Missouri and Arkansas passed increases in the minimum wage.

This really was a blue wave. There’s no question that Republicans won some key victories, but that shouldn’t distract us from just how big a blue wave this was — even if gerrymandering and geography helped contain its effects.