EP Library Facts has uncovered the talking guide used by the non-endorsed candidates to justify their board bids. They’re employing the same tactics as two years ago—NOT to foster collaboration for Elmwood Park’s benefit, but to launch a hostile campaign aimed at ousting the current library director. Director Consiglio’s proven performance and expertise have set higher standards across regional libraries (see Who Would You Choose for an example), a fact that many in the library field find alarming (see EPPL History Page).

Moreover, as before, their talking points are rife with unfounded assumptions. This time, they also co-opt the achievements of the current board while adding more misleading assertions. Their answers demonstrate that if elected, taxpayer costs would continually climb as we have seen in comparable libraries (with ‘neighbors’ like this, we will go broke!).

Save our Director / Save our Library!

With continual threats of FOIA’s and OMA filings (from folks claiming to be FOR the Elmwood Park Public Library), and social media posts taking items out of context or assuming prescribed meanings, it’s no wonder the board required counsel to be present. However, it’s important to note that many villages and public entities have counsel present during their meetings. This is not a rarity,

Let’s address the Attorney General’s ‘Determination’. Notice the FOIA referenced in the finding (Nov 2022), this was in regard to the hiring of the current director. After speaking to trustees that were part of that process, EPLibraryFacts found they were not given clear advice from their counsel on the process, whom should be involved, and the proper notices/format for meeting during candidate interviews.

However, kudos to the transparency shown in the process by what was given to the Nov 2022 FOIA request. Their excellent interview script is provided along with communications on negotiating the director’s salary.

A similar FOIA request of a recent director hire employing a hiring process ‘most libraries use’ yielded little transparency at all. Any relevant content, communications and discussions are hidden away in never to be seen executive sessions, using expensive search firms ($12k-17K in most cases) and NO interview formats/questions, resume’s or other documents. Not very transparent at all. They must be hiding something.

Now look closer at who put in the complaint - One of the candidates that is now running for the library board! So this person puts in an OMA complaint causing EPPL to pay for counsel to address the filing (all because they didn’t like the director the board picked), then complains about the current board wasting taxpayer dollars-ON SOMETHING THEY CAUSED! WOW! With tactics like that Elmwood Park taxpayers can’t afford to have these folks on the board. And they want us to vote for them? Sounds like a mobster saying “I sure would hate for anything to happen to your business….”