We “hire” city councillors through a civic election process to manage and maintain the city and plan its growth. We do not expect them to abdicate their responsibilities to boards comprised of appointed citizens, that are not of our choosing, and who may or may not be qualified to fulfill those roles.

The position of council is that it has no control over the decisions of the appointed library board. Well, the city owns the facility. The city appoints people to sit on the library board to manage the operations of the facility and develop long-term planning, presumably for council’s consideration.

The library board develops its budget and then must get the budget approved by city council before taxes are levied. The library cannot borrow money and must go through council should it require borrowing, and that debt becomes a debt of the city. And should the library board find itself in financial or legal distress, the city is liable for its actions. Yet, according to council, it has no say on the decisions of the library board.

Shouldn’t council be establishing a framework for these independent boards? Shouldn’t it be saying to the board “these are our goals, and we are asking you to advise us on how to best achieve those goals?” We should heap praise on the wisdom of earlier councils and library boards that caused the development of branch libraries as the city expanded.

Citizens in the far reaches of the city did not have to bus or drive downtown to borrow a book or other library materials. They simply went to the nearest branch library and if the book was not readily available, the branch would bring it in on request.

Evolving with society, the libraries now offer the online ordering of books. Go online and request the book you want and indicate the branch you would like to pick it up from. When the book is available, you will receive an automated call stating when the book you ordered will be available at the preferred branch and then allow three days for you to pick it up. All of this is an appreciated service, and the library should be applauded for its innovation.

By definition, a library is “a place set apart to contain books, periodicals and other material for reading, viewing, listening, study or reference” and “where books may be read or borrowed.” It is a “collection of manuscripts, publications and other materials for reading, viewing, listening, study or reference.”

In short, libraries are a public service, service being the key word. A public library is to support and encourage literacy for the masses. Rich or poor, you can go into a public library and access literary material of your choosing.

I have no objection to either the main library or any of its branches offering a space for public gatherings if those gatherings meet the standard of decency set by the city. By that I mean that the space should not be used by groups that may promote racism, bigotry or for politically-charged events.

Often citizens need a convenient place to meet and discuss local issues or celebrate neighbourhood achievements and a readily-available library seems the most appropriate forum.

But nowhere in a dictionary definition of library does it include operating coffee shops, gift shops, or parking lots, all paid for at the public’s expense. These amenities are available at private sector bookstores like McNally or Indigio. And parking lots are the domain of the city and private sector.

This $134 million project is proceeding based on the collection of $14 million-plus in donor dollars and an estimated value of the current Frances Morrison Library building.

What happens if the donor dollars don’t materialize? And should our last bastion of public service be slathered with corporate logos promoting businesses? What happens if the existing building does not net the expected profit? And why is an appointed board given the right to sell a public facility paid for by taxpayers?

If that is the case, why didn’t the Remai board sell the old Mendel building and use the profit to help pay for the new facility? By the way, who on that board has any experience or any background to shepherd this project to completion?

Did we not learn any lessons from the Remai Arts fiasco?

Again, a council-appointed board, without consultation with the public, changed the mandate of the former Mendel Art Gallery, which was to firstly support and showcase Saskatchewan and Canadian artists, to a modern art gallery that does not seemingly have the support of the general public.

It eliminated free public access to a tax paid for gallery that displayed multi-disciplined art for the enjoyment of public, to a paid admission facility for the elite. And we still don’t know the real cost of that project, and it is the city that is on the hook for the various legal disputes still in progress.

So, why does the city bear the consequences of the actions of these “independent” boards if it has no say in what the boards do?

I contend that tax-funded libraries exist to provide a service to the public, service being the key word. A good library will provide current literature in a variety of genres, as well as historical material. It should encourage the public to keep informed and enjoy the benefits of a literate society.

What our library system needed to do was to expand the branch system and secure a warehouse to store material for distribution to the various library outlets.

Every neighbourhood has at least one school. It could have investigated partnering with both school divisions to use schools’ libraries as delivery points, which in turn would encourage younger generations to avail themselves of public library resources.

If council is going to slough off its duties to “independent” boards, then the public should have the right to vote on who is going to manage those boards. And the board members should be held to account for the consequences of their decisions.

However, with this civic government, common sense is not that common.

-Elaine Hnatyshyn