I can see that I’m not making myself clear regarding what I find objectionable about recent events surrounding the library. Some people seem to think that I advocate no council oversight of the library board or that I think the advisory referendum should be taken as binding the council to every jot and tittle of the library board’s recommendation. Not so.

Let me try to explain my concerns (hopefully) better.

I believe that decisions like this one regarding library expansion should be made rationally and objectively, with real public participation and consideration of the needs of all stakeholders. I believe the library board has, to the best of their ability, done that. They have done their planning openly, had public meetings, included people in their strategic planning from all stakeholders (planning & growth department, chamber of commerce, school administration, etc.), and established an objective criteria for evaluating locations for a northern branch.

The library board ran all potential sites for a northern branch through their criteria and let the chips fall where they may. They looked at things like cost of acquisition, size, proximity to patrons, etc. The board’s initial preferred site — K’s Merchandise — did not make the cut. The board was surprised to find that the Sud’s property and the old Festival Foods were the top two sites, based on their objective criteria. That’s why they made the recommendation they did.

Contrast that with the city council. The council has no criteria for objectively choosing a site. Nor have they held any public meetings to get input from the community. The first site they floated was Elliott’s strip club on University. That was done behind the scenes in an attempt to influence the board with the promise of extra votes.

When that was shot down, the council suggested Expo Gardens. A meeting was hastily put together with representatives of the city, school board, and library board. The city is no doubt preparing its case for this site to present during the question and answer time with the library board that’s been added to the end of Tuesday’s council meeting.

Here’s the problem I have with this “process.” It’s not a process. It’s council members with pet projects or special interests using the library for their purposes instead of establishing a criteria and making objective and rational decisions based on that criteria. Nichting would like to see Elliott’s run out of the north end of town — that would be good for his constituents and it would be good for his district — so he suggests putting the library there. Spears has big plans for making the area around Expo Gardens into a family-friendly place for recreation and entertainment, so he suggests putting the library there.

Well, guess what? You can defend almost any site on that basis. Why not put a library in one of the form districts in the Heart of Peoria area? It would be a neighborhood anchor and spur redevelopment in those areas, it would be walkable, and I could come up with a hundred other benefits if I wanted. You probably can think of a lot of reasons putting a library near your neighborhood would be good, too. That’s not a reasonable or sufficient way to decide where the library is to be sited.

If the council has legitimate questions regarding the criteria the library used, I think it’s reasonable to discuss modifying that criteria — at an open meeting, with public/stakeholder input. Then, once everyone agrees on the criteria, go out and look at potential sites again, including any for which a council member has an affinity, and run them all through the criteria and may the best site win.

That’s what I’m advocating. Does that make it clearer?