[A local resident made the statement below at the SPLD board meeting on April 27, 2026.]
During the February 23rd board meeting, Ms. Lively read a statement of support for the librarians. I have repeatedly stated my admiration for the library and my appreciation for the librarians, both privately and publicly, so her remarks resonated with me.
Having said that, I want to bring attention to something that happened during the intermission of that same meeting.
A man approached me and said he wanted to talk to me about something. He introduced himself as Holly Hensley’s husband. He began by saying he needed to protect his wife, and made oblique reference to a letter to the editor I’d published in the Village Voice. He seemed to think I said something in the letter I didn’t actually say. Regardless, he repeated that he needed to protect his wife, and that, quote, “Things haven’t yet escalated to the next level, but we’re getting near that point,” end quote.
Ms. Hensley came over and berated me for a few minutes—berated is not too strong a word—then walked away. Her husband continued as before, saying again that he needed to protect his wife. He must have said this about five times. Finally I thanked him for his willingness to confront me directly, but left the encounter unclear as to what he planned on doing, and what would push him to act. Needless to say, it was an unsettling experience.
I wrote to Ms. Hensley the next day and suggested meeting at the library to clear the air. I acknowledged I had hurt her unintentionally and proposed talking through any misunderstandings. I explained that my goal was to understand each other, even if we didn’t agree, and asked if she would be open to meeting. I never heard back.
So to return to Ms. Lively’s statement of support: I have to assume she didn’t know the husband of the children’s librarian would issue a veiled threat to a member of the public for asking legitimate questions in a public forum, questions any parent of small children would find eminently reasonable. I assume she would not approve of such behavior.
Nevertheless, it happened, and given the board’s oversight of library operations, it is fair to ask whether the board should investigate it further.
Here’s why: members of the public who raise legitimate concerns about the library should not have to fear that they will be retaliated against by a family member of library staff, or by anyone else for that matter.
Given what occurred on Sunday in Washington, D.C., it should be clear that the only way we will survive as a country is by tolerating disagreement and criticism, engaging in vigorous debate, and defending every citizen’s right to participate freely and without fear in civic life.
I’d like to address a couple of other things before I close.
In the March 23rd meeting, Ms. Mills Mackey incorrectly stated I’d proposed that the Collection Development Policy exclude all sexually explicit material. Actually I’d proposed excluding such material only in the children’s and YA sections.
She also stated that recent reconsideration requests were “political” and that the process was “being abused.” However, from the first time I testified to the board almost 3 years ago and consistently since then, trustees and particularly Ms. Mills Mackey have instructed myself and other patrons to utilize the reconsideration process. We’ve done that. So now we’re effectively being criticized for not just following library policy, but for following this board’s advice. That’s self-contradictory and unfair.
Thank you.
Note: “The Indispensable Right” is the title of a book by law professor Jonathan Turley. Learn more about it here.
Comments are closed.