MY TURN By Carrie Thomas

In search of due process My concern that the project to build a new headquarters library in Milford has fallen victim to political manipulation prompted me to write this letter, independent of my involvement with the Pike County Public Library (PCPL) Building Committee. My views do not represent the position of the PCPL, its board of directors or the building committee. My comments are mine alone. When an organization is treated unfairly by government, it is said to have been denied due process. The Milford Borough Council (MBC) is responsible locally for guaranteeing due process for all applicants to the Council and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) through an open, transparent and fair process. Sadly, the library project has been denied due process at nearly every turn. The MBC has several times requested that the PCPL Building Committee refrain from publicizing certain information. In good-faith, the Building Committee acquiesced to these “gag” requests, believing that “playing along” would quell the ire of local politicians and ensure PCPL fair treatment by Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the MBC. Unfortunately, PCPL’s appeasement efforts back-fired and damaging misconceptions have spread widely. A recent case-in-point: On 1/13/09, PCPL requested a meeting n at its expense n between the architects of the ARB and PCPL to resolve outstanding design issues. The MBC president requested that PCPL refrain from publicly announcing its offer. PCPL honored the request. But, on 1/29/09 a joint MBC/ARB statement was issued, declaring “we anticipated … that some people connected with this project would not respect a decision if it was only made by us locals.” The MBC’s issuance of a provocative public statement about the library design, complete with snide parenthetical comments, came on the heels of the MBC president’s request that PCPL remain silent about its efforts to resolve the design issues. The reference to “us locals” underscores the continuing campaign to paint the PCPL Building Committee as outsiders. The ARB’s architectural consultant is an “outsider.” Five of six ARB members are “non-locals” n i.e., not borough residents (although several have business interests in town). The mixed make-up of the ARB is no different than that of the PCPL Building Committee. Yet, this inconsequential issue has been continually raised as a means to discredit the building committee volunteers. Responding to the PCPL’s request for a meeting between the architects, the MBC president said the decision required ARB and MBC approval -- in closed-door executive sessions. Why would MBC be involved in an ARB decision? And, why did this simple request require closed-door executive sessions? Three months out and the meeting of architects hasn’t happened. Tragically, the clock continues to tick on the time-bounded millions of dollars in state grants that the PCPL worked so hard to gain, endangering essential funding for the new building. PCPL met several times in 2007 and 2008 with ARB members to identify non-complying design elements. The 2008 meetings comprised three members each from the PCPL Board and Building Committee, the ARB, and MBC, including MBC president. Local papers reported that MBC/ARB admittedly restricted the number of their participants to avoid a quorum which would expose the proceedings under the Sunshine Law. Why did ARB/MBC want to avoid public scrutiny of meetings with PCPL? The ARB was created as an independent board to advise MBC on the compliance of historical district building projects. No MBC member sits on the ARB to ensure that independent recommendations are presented to MBC for vote. So, why have MBC members been involved in what is clearly an ARB issue? It was MBC, not ARB, that hired ARB’s architectural consultant and determined that this hired “gun” n alone -- would determine ARB’s recommendation to MBC for vote on the library design. So, the “independent” ARB was saddled with a consultant it did not hire and a decision-making procedure dictated by MBC. ARB’s required independence was denied, thanks to the sleight-of-hand of local politicians. The MBC President has made no bones about his dislike for the proposed library design. I believe that he has revealed a personal bias on this issue that renders him lacking in the requisite objectivity required of public officials. His lack of impartiality, inappropriate involvement in ARB matters, actions to delay the project, efforts to skirt the Sunshine Law and deceptive demand that PCPL refrain from public communication represent overt attempts to deny due process for PCPL. I urge the MBC President to cease intervening in ARB affairs and recuse himself from voting on the library design. If the PCPL’s right to due process can be so egregiously violated, what can others appearing before the ARB and MBC expect?