What I Took Away From The Library Controversy

     If you’re like me, you were at the library board meeting on July 11th, and saw the discussion over putting “In God We Trust” on the outside of the building. There has been a good deal written about the subject both here in the paper and elsewhere, by myself and others. The conversation is a big one and I’ve already said my piece, (for the moment anyway,) so instead of going over those points again, I’d like to reflect on some of the aspects of that board meeting that have stuck with me over the past couple weeks. I’m not concerned with the issue at hand, but rather with the process of resolving that issue.

     First, it was thrilling to be a part of such a bold, communal form of civic participation. That’s how social governance is supposed to work. We entrust control to a select few and they represent and codify the interests and will of the people. No matter the scale, that’s theoretically the framework. It only really works though when the people make their will heard. Even if public vote isn’t directly the mechanism of input.

     The boldness of participation brings me to my second point of reflection, the gentleman that sat to my right during the board meeting. I never did get his name so let’s call him Statler. (Presumably Waldorf had the night off.) Statler held the minority opinion in the room and showed this by booing and making derisive comments under his breath after every speaker he disagreed with. I eagerly awaited his turn to speak as he apparently had a devastating counterargument to offer.

     I was therefore deeply disappointed when Statler never spoke. All but myself were deprived of the biting commentary he offered the entire night. Mr. Statler, if you won’t speak up for what you believe in, you don’t get to criticize those who will.

     Another point comes from simply doing the math. I don’t know the exact numbers including letters, e-mails, and comments from friends that the board factored in to their decision, but the tally of speakers was 21 opposed, 6 for. The board vote was a laboriously derived 5 opposed, 4 for. I’m not saying that the board vote should be the exact extrapolation of the will of the speakers, this wasn’t a publicly voted upon issue, the board has no obligation to strictly adhere to such input. It does seem odd however, that the board struggled to reflect even the general will of its patrons who made their will clear. Of course, the will of the people heading in one distinct direction and the representative vote heading in the opposite one is becoming something of a trend in this country.

     I want to emphasize for this last observation that this is purely that, an observation. I in no way intend for this to be blame seeking, accusatory in tone, or directed at any one particular group. This is simply what I observed at the meeting I attended. In the spirit of representation in civic decisions, it is worth noting that overwhelmingly, the public present to offer their opinions were, let’s say of European descent. That opens a huge can of worms and I’m the wrong person to address it but if that observation offends or strikes you as odd, I’d simply encourage you to ask yourself why and what you can do to ensure the citizens of Freeport are more evenly represented in public discourse.

     Get involved and take ownership in your community. It’s profoundly rewarding, fascinating, and empowering. If you don’t, some goofball like me will.