Salem Political Snark

Liberty Plaza is a viable alternative to a LGBTQ-unfriendly temporary library building

On July 22 the Salem City Council voted to approve a lease with the Salem Alliance Church for use of their Capital Press building as a temporary library, while the library at the Civic Center is undergoing renovations.

City officials claimed in a staff report that the church-owned building "is the best and only option available to the City that meets the project schedule and site criteria."

Almost certainly that statement is wrong, for reasons I'll describe below.

I don't blame the City Council for trusting the staff report. I blame Steve Powers, the City Manager, and Kristin Retherford, the Urban Development Director, for affixing their names to what sure seems to be a misleading staff report, at best, and a purposely deceptive staff report, at worst.

Keep in mind that I searched the staff report for any mention of what the site criteria were for choosing a temporary library location. No luck. 

Pretty clearly one criterion wasn't "acceptable to everybody in Salem," because the Human Rights Commission voted unanimously to oppose use of the Capital Press building, given that the Salem Alliance Church is notoriously LGBTQ-unfriendly.

The church is opposed to same-sex marriage and views same-sex sex as a sin, reportedly refusing to hire otherwise qualified LGBTQ people to work in their Broadway Coffee House, which has been boycotted by neighbors because they aren't an equal opportunity employer.

The Salem Human Rights Commission statement said that an alternative location for a temporary library should be selected even if it costs more to lease than the Capital Press building and is less efficient operationally. 

In my testimony on July 22 I told the City Council that a commercial realtor here in Salem told me that yes, there certainly are alternative locations for a temporary library. And today I spoke with the realtor responsible for leasing the Liberty Plaza building in downtown Salem, Dennis Randazzo of the ProCom Commercial Group in Portland, who also told me that alternative locations exist in addition to Liberty Plaza.

Liberty Plaza was mentioned at the April meeting of the Library Renovation Subcommittee of the City Council as one of three top candidates to house a temporary library, the other two being the Capital Press building and the Vick building.

The Vick building is no longer available, but Liberty Plaza is, according to Randazzo. He told me that City staff toured Liberty Plaza, which is mostly vacant. He's very much open to discussing use of Liberty Plaza for a temporary library. It certainly seems to be an option that City officials should have taken more seriously.

Jim Scheppke, who served as director of the library for the State of Oregon for 20 years, took a look at Liberty Plaza a few days ago. He told me that in his opinion, it would make a good temporary library. He sent me this email:

Hi Brian: I went to look at Liberty Plaza today. If you are downtown you ought to have a look. I don’t know why it would not work for the temporary library. The ground floor is entirely empty with two big spaces on both sides of the foyer and offices in back. I also heard in one of the Subcommittee meetings that the basement floor is empty, but you can’t get down there.

Too bad this was not chosen. I think it could have worked. If money was short, both the Library Foundation and even the Library Advisory Board has discretionary funds that they control. They could have chipped in some extra money if they had been asked.

A missed opportunity.
Jim

Well, maybe this isn't a missed opportunity.

I believe the City Council could reconsider its decision to enter into a lease agreement with the Salem Alliance Church, which has one giant drawback: members of the LGBTQ community in Salem, along with other people who support LGBTQ rights, have said they won't use the library if it is housed in the church-owned building.

At the very least, several city councilors should discuss with Dennis Randazzo what space is available to lease in Liberty Plaza, and the cost of that space. Randazzo told me that while the owner of Liberty Plaza would like to sell the building, a two year lease for a temporary library would be entertained.

Here's some photos I took today of my own visit to Liberty Plaza.

I parked in the adjacent City of Salem parking structure. There were lots of empty spaces.

A skybridge leads from the parking structure to Liberty Plaza. Hard to beat that for convenience.

The hours shown on the skybridge door are appealing. I believe City staff have said that the library couldn't be open on Sunday if it is housed in the Capital Press building because the Salem Alliance Church generates so much traffic on Sundays.

As Randazzo told me, there are many vacant spaces in Liberty Plaza. A PDF file shows the layout of several floors, though almost certainly it isn't entirely accurate as regards current tenants, since I saw a recent notice on a vacant space about a termination of a lease agreement.

Ex-librarian Scheppke shared some additional impressions of Liberty Plaza with me.

Looking at the two big spaces on the ground floor, it looked to me like you could put the children’s dept. in the space to the left as you enter and put a selection of adult books in the space to the right along with public internet computers. There is a nice service desk already there in the space on the left.

The outside of Liberty Plaza is appealing, as is its central location in downtown Salem.

And there's plenty of evidence that space exists to lease.

I and other supporters of LGBTQ rights in Salem want very much for the City Council to take a more active role in assessing alternatives to the church-owned building, assuming one or more councilors are interested in reconsidering the vote on the Salem Alliance Church lease -- which got very little discussion at the July 22 meeting, especially considering that almost all of the public testimony was in opposition to the Capital Press lease.

Also, 289 people have signed my "Stand Up for LGBTQ Rights in Salem!" petition in support of the Human Rights Commission. 

So it sure seems like a full disclosure of the cost of using Liberty Plaza as a temporary library needs to be made to Salem citizens, along with the pros and cons of Liberty Plaza and the Capital Press building.

I readily admit that I don't trust City of Salem staff to do this, because they have shown a decided preference for using the Salem Alliance Church property -- for reasons that aren't entirely clear.

I'd like to see a offer sheet from the owners of Liberty Plaza that details what spaces would be available for a temporary library, along with the cost and terms of a two-year lease.

Then the City Council could make an informed decision between Liberty Plaza and the Capital Press building, ideally along with several other viable alternative locations. 

What's wrong with City of Salem officials?

OK, it's a truism that when a headline includes a question mark, the answer usually is "No." But I'm not asking if something is wrong with officials at the City of Salem, Oregon variety. (Not to be confused with the witch'y Salem in Massachusetts.)

Rather, it seems clear to me -- based on the evidence below -- that City officials indeed are acting in decidedly screwy ways. But I'm not sure what the cause of that screwy wrongness is. I'll throw out one idea at the end of this post. Feel free to add your own in a comment.

For those unfamiliar with how city government here in Salem is organized, these are some basic facts.

(1) We have a strong City Manager, weak Mayor/City Council setup. The Mayor and eight city councilors make up the City Council. Those nine people have no staff of their own. They aren't even paid, being volunteers. So they're dependent on City officials for just about everything.

Steve Powers, City Manager

(2) Policies supposedly are established by the City Council, then implemented by the City Manager and his staff (the current City Manager is Steve Powers). But as I said in the above-linked blog post:

So as a City of Salem web page says, "While the City Council and Mayor set laws, policies and goals for the City of Salem, the City Manager and City Departments implement them."

Thus there's a considerable inertia that has to be overcome before citizens start seeing tangible signs of changed policies.

Here's some examples of what's been going wrong at City Hall lately.

Climate Action Plan being knowingly weakened. Steve Powers, the City Manager, knows full well that the Climate Action Plan called for in the Strategic Plan approved by the City Council is intended to have a broad scope, including carbon pollution being emitted everywhere in Salem.

Yet the Salem Breakfast on Bikes blogger has noted that Powers seemingly now is viewing the Climate Action Plan as applying only to the City of Salem. This caused 350 Salem OR, the local chapter of 350.org, to be appropriately troubled.

Hopefully the City Manager isn't trying to undermine the Climate Action Plan. But his past actions, where Powers knowingly lied about the nature of the Climate Action Plan, certainly call into question his good intentions. 

Open Streets event cancelled for 2019. Salem keeps slipping in comparison to other Oregon cities when it comes to being cycling-friendly. We're going backwards, not forwards, in national assessments of how easy and enjoyable it is to ride a bicycle in Salem.

In 2013, 2014, and 2015 there was a Salem Sunday Streets event. Then it was cancelled in 2016. It came back in 2017 and 2018. Now it has been cancelled again. Here's part of my 2016 post, "Tell City officials you want a bigger and better Salem Sunday Streets." 

I don't know why the City of Salem's support for Salem Sunday Streets has slipped so much.

Being a citizen activist on various local issues, I'm concerned that the folks currently running City Hall are letting their lust for a billion dollar Third Bridge across the Willamette take precedence over much-needed improvements to Salem's cycling and pedestrian infrastructure.

The more people experience the joy of getting around town without a car, the less need there will be for an already unnecessary Third Bridge and other costly expansions of Salem's roads. Fred Kent, founder of the Project for Public Spaces, is quoted in a book I'm reading, "This Is Where You Belong." 

"If you plan cities for cars and traffic, you get cars and traffic. If you plan for people and places, you get people and places."

City officials kept on pushing for a Third Bridge long after it was obvious that a majority on the City Council favored killing this boondoggle, which eventually happened.

Likewise, City officials are dragging their feet on improving the ability of residents to get around town on bicycles, as evidenced by the lack of support for Open Streets events that are wildly popular in Portland, Eugene, and other Oregon cities. So what gives? 

Steve Powers reportedly was a cyclist when he came to Salem for the City Manager job from Ann Arbor, Michigan.

But he is doing exactly nothing, so far as I can tell, to wean City officials off of their addiction to big expensive road improvements that are aimed at what the Breakfast on Bikes blogger calls "hydraulic autoism" -- a mindless continuation of failed transportation policies that are a major contributor to the global warming caused by carbon pollution.

The web site for Open Streets Salem no longer exists, a sign of how uncaring City of Salem staff are about this event.

Crazy public library policies. Librarians have a reputation of being pleasingly boring. When was the last time you heard a director of a public library call for something that makes citizens think, WTF? 

But Sarah Strahl, the director of the Salem Public Library, along with other City officials, have been involved in two decidedly WTF policy decisions recently that have bothered people who previously were strongly supportive of the library.

First, Strahl and Co. engaged in a massive book removal effort called by opponents of this bad idea, the Big Weed. City officials never were able to explain why they wanted to discard so many books for no good reason. They just kept on doing it, until the City Council stepped in and the Big Weed was first paused, then stopped entirely. 

Second, somehow Strahl and other City officials thought it would be a great idea to house a temporary library in a building owned by the Salem Alliance Church, the most notorious anti-LGBTQ rights organization in Salem.

Unsurprisingly, a large public outcry resulted.

The Salem Human Rights Commission unanimously voted to oppose this plan, since members of the LGBTQ community wouldn't use the library if it was in a building owned by a church that considers them second-class citizens (the church rejects same-sex marriage and considers same-sex sex to be a sin).

I described how wrong this plan was in a blog post, ending it with this semi-satirical Onion'esque passage:

City officials in Salem choose gay-hating church to house public library, tell LGBTQ people to head to Portland or Eugene if they want to read books during next two years

SALEM, OREGON -- Last Monday the Salem City Council voted 6-1 to pay the Salem Alliance Church for use of a building the church owns as a temporary public library, ignoring pleas from members of the LGBTQ community.

"We won't use the library if it is in a building owned by a church that considers us second-class citizens," said one exceedingly gay person wearing a purple blazer and a perfectly matching tie who testified at the council meeting, wiping away tears as they spoke.

City officials came in for criticism after claiming that in Oregon's capital city, which has a popularion of over 160,000, there were no other buildings available to lease with 16,000 square feet of empty space. 

When asked to comment on this claim, a commercial realtor in Salem fell to the ground laughing uproariously for a full five minutes, then said, "Great joke! You're kidding me, right?"

A spokesman for the City of Salem issued this statement at a news conference where reporters asked how anyone could think it was a good idea to house the public library in the most un-gay-friendly building in the city.

"Hey, this is Salem. We aren't exactly known for being cutting-edge in anything, including human rights. Anyone who lives here and is lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender, or whatever the heck 'Q' stands for, should understand that Portland and Eugene are the LGBTQ hot spots in western Oregon.

They've got public libraries that would be glad to check out books to members of our community who have the unreasonable expectation of using a library building that isn't owned by a homophobic organization. Just an hour's drive away, assuming you don't hit a traffic jam, which, in the case of Portland, is pretty much anytime. Suck it up, gay people."

So again, I'm convinced City of Salem officials all-too-often are on the wrong track when it comes to important policy decisions Why this is happening is unclear. 

The leaders of an organization create a climate within which employees operate. So the City Manager, Steve Powers, bears the most responsibility for what's been going wrong at City Hall. Problem is, I don't sense much enthusiasm or interest among City Council members in ending those screw-ups.

Which means, likely we can expect more things going wrong at the City of Salem in the future.

UPDATE: Yikes! I forgot to include this tweet from Salem's famous Angry Owl about huge cost overruns on the new Police Facility being built by the City of Salem. But, hey, what's a few million dollars to City officials? They can always get citizens to pay more in taxes. Which just happened. 

Disturbing wrongness of last Monday's Salem City Council meeting

Last Monday, July 22, I was as angry as I've ever been at a decision by the Salem City Council. With the passage of two days, I'm even more convinced that what six of seven councilors in attendance at the meeting did was wrong. 


And not just a little bit wrong. A lot wrong. Hugely wrong. Stupendously wrong.

Please, scroll down and watch the four videos I made of the people who testified in person during the 3-minute public comment period, arguing against the really bad idea of temporarily housing the Salem Public Library in a building owned by the Salem Alliance Church -- which denies LGBTQ rights with fundamentalist religious relish.

I was almost moved to tears by the testimony of three people who are either past or present members of the Salem Human Rights Commission, which unanimously voted to oppose the City of Salem bestowing hundreds of thousands of dollars upon the Salem Alliance Church to lease the old Capital Press building. (I also testified.)

But not one city councilor, nor the Mayor, asked any questions of these supporters of LGBTQ rights. Neither did any councilor, nor the Mayor, express one word of sympathy, understanding, or compassion to these people, who said that they wouldn't be able to use the library if it was located in a building owned by an organization that denies basic human rights.

Instead, the Mayor and city councilors sat there like uncaring stones, seemingly unmoved by the heartfelt testimony of David Rollings, Tricarico Schwarz, Cary Renfro, and myself. I read statements from three of the 285 people who have signed the "Stand Up for LGBTQ Rights in Salem!" petition that I started.

I'll share those statements after the videos.

What further griped me about the 6-1 City Council vote is that both the Mayor and city councilors failed to ask City officials about their highly dubious assertion that in a city of over 160,000, there isn't a single alternative location with around 16,000 square feet available for a two-year lease to temporarily house the library.

As I said in my testimony, when I asked a commercial realtor about this, they almost laughed before responding, "Of course there are other locations. They just might cost more than the Capital Press building."

So no one on the City Council cared enough about making the temporary library accessible to everybody in the community, including members of the LGBTQ communities, to ask any questions of staff about how much extra it would cost to lease a building other than the church-owned building.

I was angry when I wrote the following Facebook post immediately after watching the City Council approve the lease with the Salem Alliance Church via CCTV. My feelings haven't changed.

I'm particularly disappointed in three progressive councilors (Chris Hoy, Cara Kaser, and Matt Ausec) joining forces with the three most conservative councilors (Jim Lewis, Brad Nanke, and Mayor Chuck Bennett) to deny LGBTQ rights in Salem.

Again, more important than my words is the following video testimony of the three past and present members of the Salem Human Rights Commission.

It's galling that the Library Renovation Subcommittee of the City Council decided to ask the Commission to weigh in on this issue, then the City Council totally ignored the Commission's strong statement rejecting the church-owned building, which called for an alternative location to be chosen even it it cost more and was less efficient operationally.

Here's my Monday night Facebook post.

LGBTQ rights just got trashed by the Salem City Council. After hearing from numerous people in our city's LGBTQ communities that they wouldn't use a temporary library if it was housed in the Capital Press building owned by the Salem Alliance Church, which rejects same sex marriage and views same sex-sex as a sin, I'm pretty sure nearly every councilor just said in effect, "Deal with it, LGBTQ people."

UPDATE: Jackie Leung let me know that she voted "No" via her speakerphone connection. I've updated this post accordingly. Thanks, Jackie.

So Mayor Bennett, and councilors Chris Hoy, Jim Lewis, Brad Nanke, Cara Kaser, and Matt Ausec just joined the Human Rights Hall of Shame. I'm especially disgusted at how our supposedly progressive councilors voted. Jackie Leung was the exception, since she voted No. (Councilors Tom Andersen and Sally Cook were excused from the meeting.)

I plan to make a video of the heartfelt testimony from three members of the LGBTQ communities who spoke about how bad it would be if the City of Salem rewarded the Salem Alliance Church's bigotry with a big fat lease contract.

This has woken me up to something I've been reluctant to admit. The progressive majority on the City Council is that in name only. When push comes to shove, when they're forced to take a moral stand, too often too many of them take the easy way out.

I'm disgusted at Hoy, Kaser, and Ausec. This is a sad moment for human rights in Salem. When you see the video of the people testifying who GENUINELY stand up for human rights, you'll understand what I mean.

 

 

 

Here’s three of the comments from petition signers who live in Salem. They echo the concerns expressed by the Human Rights Commission.

"If the Salem Alliance Church wants to be against same sex marriage then so be it. However, our tax dollars should not go to this church. The city would be funding their anti LGBTQ views. NO, NO, NO to this location being the temporary home of the Salem Library. Why should my tax dollars go to an organization who believes my marriage is wrong and immoral??? My family will stop using the library if the city insists on housing the library on the property of this homophobic organization.”

"The discriminatory practices of Salem Alliance Church and harmful, derogatory beliefs held by the pastor directly affect the lives of myself and my loved ones in negative ways. While I support the missions of Broadway on a broader spectrum, I do not want to support city money going towards the Salem Alliance Church.”

"The city should not house any public and publicly funded operations in private holdings, especially ecclesiastical holdings, even temporarily. The particular church in question, while doing many things that do serve the community at large, is anti LGBTQ+ in it's practices. Housing the library in a building owned by a church that gives to the community with one hand while actively preaching against the equality of specific members of that community will make those members of the community hesitate to use library services for the duration of the situation. There are many large, empty buildings in Salem, surely one can be found for a reasonable price that doesn't belong to a discriminatory entity."

UPDATE: It occurred to me that while this subject is serious, there's room for some Onion'esque humor in how City officials and the City Council have managed to take what should have been a routine task of finding a widely acceptable temporary home for the public library while renovations are being made to the Civic Center building, and turned it into a freaking human rights nightmare.

----------------------

City officials in Salem choose gay-hating church to house public library, tell LGBTQ people to head to Portland or Eugene if they want to read books during next two years

SALEM, OREGON -- Last Monday the Salem City Council voted 6-1 to pay the Salem Alliance Church for use of a building the church owns as a temporary public library, ignoring pleas from members of the LGBTQ community.

"We won't use the library if it is in a building owned by a church that considers us second-class citizens," said one exceedingly gay person wearing a purple blazer and a perfectly matching tie who testified at the council meeting, wiping away tears as they spoke.

City officials came in for criticism after claiming that in Oregon's capital city, which has a popularion of over 160,000, there were no other buildings available to lease with 16,000 square feet of empty space. 

When asked to comment on this claim, a commercial realtor in Salem fell to the ground laughing uproariously for a full five minutes, then said, "Great joke! You're kidding me, right?"

A spokesman for the City of Salem issued this statement at a news conference where reporters asked how anyone could think it was a good idea to house the public library in the most un-gay-friendly building in the city.

"Hey, this is Salem. We aren't exactly known for being cutting-edge in anything, including human rights. Anyone who lives here and is lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender, or whatever the heck 'Q' stands for, should understand that Portland and Eugene are the LGBTQ hot spots in western Oregon.

They've got public libraries that would be glad to check out books to members of our community who have the unreasonable expectation of using a library building that isn't owned by a homophobic organization. Just an hour's drive away, assuming you don't hit a traffic jam, which, in the case of Portland, is pretty much anytime. Suck it up, gay people."

Here's my testimony supporting the Salem Human Rights Commission

This afternoon I submitted advance testimony to the City Council in support of the Salem Human Rights Commission's rejection of the plan to use a building owned by the LGBTQ-unfriendly Salem Alliance Church as a temporary home for the Salem Public Library.

Yeah, I'm wordy.

But I wanted to cover the arguments in favor of finding another location for a temporary library that wouldn't cause members of the LGBTQ communities in our town to stop going to the library for the 18 months or so it will take for renovations to the library building at the Civic Center to be completed.

I think I make a lot of sense.

But since I'm me, that's to be expected. My favorite part of the testimony didn't come from me. It came from three people who left some passionate reasons for why they signed the "Stand up for LGBTQ rights in Salem!" petition I started five days ago. 

I shared those reasons, which wonderfully reflected the Human Rights Commission statement in opposition to leasing the church-owned building. Here's what went off to the City of Salem today. (The formatting is a bit screwed-up due to copy and pasting from my email message.)
-----------------------------------------

TO: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
SUBJECT: Testimony for July 22 City Council meeting

Here’s advance testimony for the Library Relocation agenda item that I’ve been told by City staff will be discussed, and possibly acted on, at the July 22 City Council meeting. 

(1) Submission of 227 petition signatures in support of the Salem Human Rights Commission. Last Friday, five days ago, I started a petition on the Care2 platform, “Stand up for LGBTQ rights in Salem!” The petition reads:

City officials want to temporarily house the Salem Public Library in a building owned by a church that rejects gay marriage and considers same-sex sex to be a sin. The Salem Human Rights Commission has taken a stand against this bad plan. 

 

Support the Commission and send a message to the City Council in support of LGBTQ rights by signing this petition. There are alternative places to temporarily house the library while renovations are made. On July 22, the City Council likely will discuss this issue.

 

The Human Rights Commission statement said:

 

"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 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.”

Here’s a PDF file prepared by Care2 of the petition as it stands now, Wednesday afternoon. I’ll submit updated results at the July 22 City Council meeting. 

 

Download FIrst 227 stand-up-for-lgbtq-rights-in-salem_071719-2

 

City Recorder, please print out the 11 pages of the petition's PDF file as part of my advance testimony. It contains many comments submitted by signers that explain why they support this petition that often are quite moving,

 

Here’s three of the comments from petition signers who live in Salem. They echo the concerns expressed by the Human Rights Commission.

"If the Salem Alliance Church wants to be against same sex marriage then so be it. However, our tax dollars should not go to this church. The city would be funding their anti LGBTQ views. NO, NO, NO to this location being the temporary home of the Salem Library. Why should my tax dollars go to an organization who believes my marriage is wrong and immoral??? My family will stop using the library if the city insists on housing the library on the property of this homophobic organization."

 

"The discriminatory practices of Salem Alliance Church and harmful, derogatory beliefs held by the pastor directly affect the lives of myself and my loved ones in negative ways. While I support the missions of Broadway on a broader spectrum, I do not want to support city money going towards the Salem Alliance Church."

 

"The city should not house any public and publicly funded operations in private holdings, especially ecclesiastical holdings, even temporarily. The particular church in question, while doing many things that do serve the community at large, is anti LGBTQ+ in it's practices. Housing the library in a building owned by a church that gives to the community with one hand while actively preaching against the equality of specific members of that community will make those members of the community hesitate to use library services for the duration of the situation. There are many large, empty buildings in Salem, surely one can be found for a reasonable price that doesn't belong to a discriminatory entity."

I want to note that one of the petition signers is Jim Scheppke, an avid supporter of the library who worked hard to pass the bond measure that is funding the renovation of the Salem Public Library. He was director of the Library for the State of Oregon for 20 years. Here’s Scheppke’s comment:

"Our library has enough problems as it is. It doesn't need to alienate a significant portion of our community (and for good reason). Take the time to find another site for the temporary library."

Since the petition was shared on social media, signers are from a wide variety of places. However, 157 of the first 227 signers have a Salem or Keizer address, with many more being from nearby areas such as Silverton, Albany, Turner, and such.

 

(2) Human Rights Commission statement. Though members of the City Council and other City officials likely have read the statement of the Salem Human Rights Commission, I wanted to be sure that it is entered into the record. Here it is, in both PDF and print form.

Download HRC statement on the Library relocation

 

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.

 

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 of the City’s Human Rights Code, particularly as applied to the LGBTQ community, and urge all of the 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 LGBTQ 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 

(3) My testimony regarding the Human Rights Commission statement. It is important to note that the clear preference of the Commission is for City officials to find another location for a temporary library other than the church-owned Capital Press building, even if that alternative costs more and is less efficient in terms of library operations.

 

The key reason for this stand by the Human Rights Commission is that members of the LGBTQ communities will not be comfortable accessing the church-owned space, and some will avoid going to the library altogether during the 18 months or so the temporary space will be used.

 

I’ve heard arguments that the City of Salem contracts with other religious organizations, so why not the Salem Alliance Church? Well, the Salem Public Library is unique among social services provided by the City of Salem. It is intended to be a welcoming place for everyone in the community. Repeat, everyone. 

 

The Library Renovation Subcommittee of the City Council spent considerable time at its June meeting discussing the fact of the Salem Alliance Church being opposed to LGBTQ rights, and how this would impact use of the library if the Capital Press building was leased as a temporary library location.

 

I heard it said on the audio recording of the meeting (written minutes aren’t available) that the situation is akin to why some people refuse to shop at Walmart, Amazon, Hobby Lobby, or such. It isn’t that these places aren’t welcoming to everybody, since they embrace anybody with cash to spend. 

 

Rather, people have objections to certain practices followed by these organizations, including how they treat their employees, their effect on other businesses, their commitment to social justice/equity (or lack thereof), and so on. The same applies if the City of Salem were to use the church-owned building as a temporary library.

 

What bothers many people, including me, is that the Salem Alliance Church considers LGBTQ people to be second-class citizens. Perhaps this sounds overly harsh. I disagree. Bigotry is bigotry, whether it is practiced by a religious organization or anyone else.

 

If a corporation made it known that they oppose same-sex marriage and consider same-sex sex to be a sin, wouldn’t people who support LGBTQ rights be justified in boycotting that corporation? Why should bigotry founded in a controversial interpretation of the Old Testament be exempt from such outrage? 

 

At the June meeting of the Library Renovation Committee meeting, city councilor Jim Lewis had a “love it or leave it” attitude toward those who oppose the City of Salem paying the Salem Alliance Church for a lease on the Capital Press building. Lewis said:

"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 someone else to respond:

"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."

So City staff went to meetings of both the LGBTQ Human Rights Task Force of the Human Rights Commission and the Commission itself. They explained how welcoming and inclusive the temporary library would be, given that it would be run by City of Salem employees.

 

Then they got the response back from the Human Rights Commission expressed in the statement above.

 

"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 exists that has 16,000 square feet or so of available space. 

(That’s the size of the Capital Press building.)

The City Council is faced with a difficult decision. Three options appear open to the Council, none of them ideal.

 

A. Select a location for the temporary library that doesn’t carry with it the baggage of the property being owned by an organization opposed to LGBTQ rights. This is the preference of the Human Rights Commission, which I agree with.

 

B. Enter into a lease with the Salem Alliance Church to use the Capital Press building as a temporary library. This will lead many in the LGBTQ communities to avoid going to the library, and will send a signal that the City of Salem doesn’t fully endorse LGBTQ rights.

 

C. Require citizens to use the West Salem branch of the library while renovations are being made to the library’s main Civic Center building. This would be better than no library at all for 18 months.

 

I hope you choose option A above. 

 

Sincerely, Brian Hines

 

 

Salem's LGBTQ communities need your help

I get it. It's summer. The living is mostly easy. There's so many causes -- political, social, cultural -- that demand your attention. But please give some serious thought to spending a few minutes to help some people close to home: Salem's LGBTQ communities.

Here's the issue they need your help with.

The Salem Public Library has to be relocated while renovations are made to the library building at the Civic Center. City officials favor using the old Capital Press building adjacent to the Broadway Commons as a temporary library.

Problem is, the Capital Press building is owned by the Salem Alliance Church, as is the Broadway Commons. The church isn't LGBTQ friendly.

Now, if you're either already familiar with this issue, or don't need further convincing to support the LGBTQ communities in Salem who oppose leasing of the church-owned property for a temporary public library, I urge you to do one or more of these things as soon as possible -- since the City Council will be discussing this issue, and likely acting on it, at the Monday, July 22 council meeting.

(1) Sign the “Stand up for LGBTQ rights in Salem!” petition that will be submitted to the City Council.

(2) Submit advance testimony for the July 22 City Council meeting to [email protected] with a "cc" to [email protected]  Include your full name and address. Express support for the Human Rights Commission position that a different location than the church-owned building should be found for a temporary library, even if that location is more costly and less efficient in terms of operations. Note that alternative locations have been identified by City staff.

 

(3) Testify in person during the three-minute public comment period at the Monday, July 22 City Council meeting, 6 pm at the council chambers in City Hall (555 Liberty St. SE). Sign up before the meeting, indicating which agenda item you’re testifying on. Read your testimony if desired, but often testimony has more of an impact if it's spoken while looking at the council members and comes from the heart, as well as the head. 

 

OK, with this important citizen activism request out of the way, we return to the subject of this blog post: why Salem's LGBTQ communities need the help described in 1-3 above.

 

The Salem Alliance Church is opposed to same-sex marriage, even though this has been legal everywhere in the United States since 2015. The church also considers same-sex sex to be a sin. Last December I wrote about this in "Salem Alliance Church pastor talks about sin of same-sex sex."

 

Another post, "Two reports of how Broadway Coffee House/Commons discriminates against LBGT people," described how neighbors of the Broadway Commons were boycotting it because of the church's discriminatory attitudes.

 

I also shared a letter to the editor in the Statesman Journal calling for a boycott. So it wasn't surprising that the Salem Human Rights Commission voted unanimously to reject the plan to use the church-owned building for a temporary library, even if an alternative location costs more and is less efficient in terms of operations.

 

And that vote occurred after City officials met with both the LGBTQ Rights Task Force of the Human Rights Commission, and the Commission itself. Thus the decision to oppose using the Capital Press building during the library's relocation period (18 months or so) was well-informed, given that those officials hoped to convince the Human Rights Commission to support use of the church-owned building.

 

Here's excerpts from the full Human Rights Commission statement:

"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 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."

There are indeed other properties available to serve as a temporary library. I'm confident of this because I've listened to audio recordings of several meetings of the Library Renovation Subcommittee of the City Council, including the most recent meeting in June.

One of the facts I discussed in "Three facts about the controversy over Salem library moving to church property" was Seemingly there are alternatives to the building owned by the Salem Alliance Church.  Two days ago I asked City officials to let me know if they disagreed with any of the facts in that post. I've heard nothing back.

City officials don't see much wrong with using the church-owned building because the church isn't going to be running the temporary library. However, this quote in a Salem Reporter story, "Plan to move Salem library to church-owned property stirs discrimination concerns," captures why the Human Rights Commission opposes this plan.

Daniel Rollings, president of the Salem chapter of PFLAG, a national organization that advocates for LGBTQ rights, said the plan is still tantamount to partnering with a hate group.

“I am completely opposed to the city partnering with any organization, regardless of what it is, that actively discriminates against anyone,” he said. “The city should not put out bids to work with the (Ku Klux Klan) nor should they work with anti-LGBTQ organizations that actively discriminate against the LGBTQ community.”

If you find what Rollings said to be unduly provocative, here's how I see the situation.

Imagine an alternative reality. Most people are gay, attracted to the same sex. But there's a minority who are heterosexual. One of the largest churches in Salem wants to lease a building to the City of Salem for a temporary library. It's well known that the church will only marry LGBTQ individuals. And it considers sex between people of the opposite sex to be a sin.

If you're heterosexual, wanting to marry a woman if you're a man, or a man if you're a woman, would you feel comfortable using a library in a building owned by a church that denies your right to marry? And not only that. Whether you're married or not, the church says that you shouldn't be having sex with someone of the opposite gender, because that would be a sin.

How would you feel about taxpayer money being used to lease space in a building that opposes what you consider to be fundamental human rights: the right to marry whoever you love, and the right to have sexual relations with someone of the opposite sex?

Speaking as a heterosexual man, I wouldn't like that at all.

Which is why I'm supporting the Human Rights Commission, because I understand why members of Salem's LGBTQ communities don't want the City of Salem to lease space from a church that denies their basic human rights.

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.

UPDATE: Today, July 17, I called the company that had the Vick Building up for sale or lease. I was told that a contract on the Vick Building has been signed, and it will be purchased within the next few months. So that option is gone for a temporary library.

(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