Staff Blog
Hearings begin on libraries
Hearings are taking place as we speak on the two separate lawsuits filed in recent weeks to stop Mayor Michael Nutter from closing branch libraries. The first lawsuit was filed by local attorney/former candidate for City Council Irv Ackelsberg on behalf of library patrons and concerned community groups. The second and more recent lawsuit was filed by Councilmembers Blackwell, Green and Kelly.
With the uproar over Nutter's decision, it's no surprise that Courtroom 426 was packed this morning with library supporters — a very diverse crowd indeed.
The first part of the morning dealt with the first lawsuit, filed by Ackelsberg, and involved testimony from library patrons.
Tanya Westbrook, who is named as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, testified that she and her family rely on their local branch (Logan) for all kinds of services. She uses the computers to look for work and spends hours reading through the library's poetry collection; her sons use the Internet, check out books and do homework there. Losing the library, she said, would be a blow to her family.
On cross examination (yes, library patrons were cross-examined), Westbrook was asked if she could use the computers at Greater Olney, the nearest branch.
Westbrook answered yes, but that those computers were usually full. When asked if her children could walk to Greater Olney, Westbrook answered yes again, but added that her older son had been jumped walking there before, and she was afraid for his safety.
In a way, it's strange to see this discussion over the importance of local libraries taking place in court. Normally, we'd expect to see presentations like this in City Council or in community meetings. But so far, the only public forum for this stuff has been the mayor's town hall meetings, which were announced after the library cuts were. When some members of council tried to hold hearings a couple of weeks ago, they were blocked by Council president Anna Verna.
Now we have lawyers, and not the mayor or members of Council, asking people what their libraries mean to them.
But there was more to these stories than a public cry of "for shame." To persuade the judge to grant an injunction, the plaintiffs have to show that people will be hurt if the court doesn't step in. They also have to convince the judge that the case is winnable.
The aim of cross examination by the city's attorneys, therefore, was to show that affected library patrons had other options.
And here's where it gets interesting. Several times, and with several plaintiffs, the defense asked plaintiffs whether their concerns would be alleviated if the services they sought from the library were provided elsewhere.
This is almost certainly related to the plans Mayor Nutter has alluded to, but not yet spelled out, to move library services to other facilities like rec centers. (Nutter is holding a press conference right now to announce that LEAP after-school programs will be preserved.)
But those plans aren't proven, and — as far as patrons are concerned — the libraries are.
When asked if she would be satisfied if "another center opened nearby" with the same services, Sharon Vann, whose precocious fifth-grade daughter spends six days a week at the Queen Memorial branch, answered: "A 'center,' to me, is not the same thing as a library."
