A Disturbing Conversation

I had an illuminating conversation today with someone who claims deep knowledge of Redwood City's powerful insiders If his comments to me are reflective of the machinations behind the Schaberg issues, it's important they be known publicly. So here I'll share the conversation; as he did not make these comments publicly, I'm not disclosing identity, or that of the group he's affiliated with.

This man is with a local political association. He contacted me to explore the possibility of our group meeting with his. But he didn't want us to simply provide someone to speak to the group. He wanted our group to meet with him, then have him present to the Executive Committee of his group () . Then, if they wanted to help us, they would allow us to come present to his whole group and we could begin working together.

I noted that our committee has met physically only twice because we're all busy, and that most of our communication happens via e-mail. I was more than willing to answer any questions and come talk to their group (or have another committee member attend). He declined, and here's where the conversation got interesting: he said the group is not comfortable with how the committee has been approaching the threat to the Schaberg branch.

His key issue: that we've been dealing with this publicly. He said we should have private meetings with city, library and foundation official to find out why decisions have been made. That they would give us information that would let us know more about what is going on and what other paths we could take.

Let me underline the implication here: that the real information on the disposition of the bequest money and the potential closure of Schaberg could be revealed to me behind closed doors.

He reiterated that I should meet on my own with Councilwoman Pierce, Library Director Genesy, Foundation Director LaBerge and Ms. LaBerge's husband, a professional mediator. I had declined this months ago when Councilwoman Pierce suggested it, and here's why: one, this is not a personality conflict and I am not the issue; and two, discussions regarding the library and library funding should be a matter of public record.

This grew more and more disturbing as we talked, and hours later it's still upsetting. Why was this being put forth as an “insiders vs. outsiders” issue? I just don't understand why there are any outsiders when it comes to community issues.

I was also told that our group seemed to have concerns: the fate of Schaberg, the disposition of the bequest; and retired librarian Chuck Ashton. I corrected that third point: our issue is not with Mr. Ashton specifically, but with the allocation of $200,000 for his storytelling services over five years while a library's fate is in the balance.

Now another intriguing turn: my contact said, "Well, imagine that you had the money to keep the library open separate from the bequest. Would you still pursue that path?" I said that the scenario didn't make sense, since that is not the reality we're dealing with. He pressed, "But if you had the money, would you continue on this path?" I asked if one of his group members was ready to write a large check to the library; he said of course not. So why, I asked would I spend time and energy pondering an imaginary solution?

Over the course of our talk my caller returned repeatedly to one theme: the Committee to Save Schaberg is making the wrong choice by conducting our campaign publicly, providing the press with information, and involving the library's users. He made it clear the best way to handle it was behind closed doors with the powers that be – even going so far as to imply that the real power behind these choices is not the person who publicly bears that responsibility. At one point I felt I should be having this conversation in a parking garage and that I should be calling my contact by the name of a porn movie! (Watergate and Deep Throat, people; if you don't remember that, rent the movie) :-)

I finally told my contact our group is doing the right things; that this is a public issue and that people must be informed. If he and his group decide to support Schaberg, I said, they're certainly welcome to use whatever methods they deem appropriate. We ended the conversation.

And this is the road we're staying on. Redwood City's passionate, involved community deserves to be fully informed about decisions that affect us. The Committee is determined to work openly and transparently to bring adequate funding to Schaberg, and full library services to Redwood City's west side. It's not clear which or how many people my caller represents. But it is clear he endorses the exact kind of back-room dealing that's brought this valuable library branch to the precipice, and that's not the way to bring it back.

Please take a moment TODAY to call or email the Mayor or a council member (here is all the contact info), and the Library Board members (a list is here). Tell them how important Schaberg Library, and a public dialogue about its future are to you. And thanks for your continued support!