Need help fast!

I hate to ask but then I know you all are so good with helping so....

Our Mayor put together a board for the public library. Apparently this board was made up of members of his church, fundies. The information is not really clear about the why, how and who. They tried to start changing policy by removing any material that mentioned sex including medical journals, music, movies and then they went after gay literature. This is, of course, to protect "our" children :eyes:. Sure it is. I was told about this months ago very quietly because the employees of the library were threatened not to let the public know about this. Well, it just went away somehow. Someone, some group, I don't know who stopped it and we all breathed a sigh of relief. I found out a couple of days ago that one of our churches started a petition to bring it back up. I just found out 5 minutes ago that they are taking public comment this afternoon and I am NOT going to let this go without speaking my mind. My big problem is that I am a terrified and lousy speaker and I don't know how to make a good point when I speak. I would not have a problem if it was just me but since I am Vice Chair of the state board of KEC I need to present well.

I am headed off to the rest of the tubes now to do some research to gather talking points that I can work with. If you all have any suggestions could you please post them? I want to be ready and calm knowing I am not going to make an ass out of KEC (I could care less about making an ass out of myself) and I need to be certain that what I say speaks well for the GLBT community.

Thanks ahead of time. I will let you all know how it goes after it is all done.

:loveya: :scared:

Also, check-out these books:

http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/imageDB.cgi?isbn=9781576754580

Praise for Cracking the Code

“No one communicates more thoughtfully or effectively on the radio airwaves than Thom Hartmann. He gets inside the arguments and helps people to think them though—to understand how to respond when they’re talking about public issues with coworkers, neighbors, and friends. This book explores some of the key perspectives behind his approach, teaching us not just how to find the facts but to talk about what they mean in a way that people will hear.”
—Paul Loeb, author of Soul of a Citizen

“Thom Hartmann’s book is an excellent primer in communication techniques. But unlike other message makers, Hartmann has genuine substance. He is restoring the radical populist tradition to the mainstream of our culture. Much of what we revere as Americans, Hartman believes, was created by radicals who simply were ahead of their time.”
—Tom Hayden, activist and author of Ending the War in Iraq

“Thom Hartmann ought to be bronzed. His new book sets off from the same high plane as the last and offers explicit tools and how-to advice that will allow you to see, hear, and feel propaganda when it’s directed at you and use the same techniques to refute it. His book would make a deaf-mute a better communicator. I want him on my reading table every day, and if you try one of his books, so will you.
—Peter Coyote, actor and author of Sleeping Where I Fall

“In Cracking the Code, Thom Hartmann, America’s most popular, informed, and articulate progressive talk show host and political analyst, tells us what makes humans vulnerable to unscrupulous propagandists and what we can do about it. It is essential reading for all Americans who are fed up with right-wing extremists manipulating our minds and politics to promote agendas contrary to our core values and interests.”
—David C. Korten, author of The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community and When Corporations Rule the World and board chair of YES! magazine.

http://www.powells.com/biblio/1576754588

More:
http://www.thomhartmann.com/CrackingTheCode/blurbs.htm


And:


Verbal Judo: The Gentle Art of Persuasion
by George J. Thompson

Synopsis:
Improve communication, resolve conflicts, and avoid the most common conversational disasters through simple, easily remembered strategies that deflect and redirect negative behaviour.

Verbal Judo is the martial art of the mind and mouth that can show you how to be better prepared in every verbal encounter. Listen and speak more effectively, engage people through empathy (the most powerful word in the English language), avoid the most common conversational disasters, and use proven strategies that allow you to successfully communicate your point of view and take the upper hand in most disputes.

George J. Thompson, Ph.D., is a former English professor and a black bet master of karate. He created and crash-tested verbal judo when he was a police officer on an urban beat. He is now a popular lecturer and lives -in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Jerry B. Jenkins was most recently the co-author of Miracle Mon. The Nolan Ryan Story.

More:
http://www.powells.com/biblio/62-9780060577650-0

I will do that because this may be the first time but I doubt it will be the last time I have to do something like this. These are great suggestions!

in my experience they tend to be rather liberal and opinionated. Even if they are being intimidated they may well be very interested in speaking to someone like you. Good luck and report back. :hug:

that is where I found out about it the first time.

I will let you know. :hi:

Americans United for Separation of Church and State
518 C Street NE, Washington, DC 20002
(202) 466-3234 fax (202) 466-2587
americansunited@au.org
http://www.au.org


ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004
http://www.aclu.org/contact/general/index.html

and the state association in your area.

without my intro (based on the media training I had from GLAAD). I got almost all of this from Sund V. Wichita Falls and I will credit that at the end of the time. http://www.ahcuah.com/lawsuit/federal/sund.htm

Please critic as you see fit. It is very generic since I do not know the specifics they are going to introduce tonight. Kinda creepy the way this has been kept under wraps but just the MO I would expect.

*****************************************************************************************************

We should each be able to determine what our child is exposed to. It is a parental responsibility not the responsibility of the library or any other group. While some may object to the material being there, others like myself object to the removal of the materials. I raised two sons and was very particular that they have information that was age appropriate. It was difficult but I did it. It is a parental responsibility.

Many times certain issues are difficult for a child. By making access to the information they need more difficult we are stunting their ability to learn possibly about themselves and others at a time when they most need the knowledge and often the support. This action would send a message to some children that their lives do not count as much as other children's lives and that their life is so different it needs to be kept in an out of the way place away from the rest of society.

Access to information is essential to our Democracy. It is essential for healthy growth of children and essential for a healthy community. This is in essence banning books, a violation of our freedom of expression and our freedom to access information.

Who is going to determine what is or is not appropriate information? As an adult I resent anyone deciding for me what I should or should not have access to. I resent someone else deciding what my child should have access to. The information is there, some not to my liking certainly but it is very easy to see it and put it away. To have a group of people determine what the rest of us have access to is a frightening step in the wrong direction for a country that loves freedom.

The first amendment of the the constitution indisputably protects the right of citizens to receive information. In order to exercise one's rights to free speech, press and political freedom we must have free access to information. It is inappropriate for a group from any institution including churches, schools, libraries or the government to restrict the rights of citizens in this way. To remove or make difficult the access to material simply because of a dislike of the information contained is unconstitutional. To do this to promote an ideology that is not shared by all in order to influence politically, religiously, nationally or to promote their difference of opinion is outrageous and again, unconstitutional.

**I took out all the snark so it is pretty bare but probably better this way ;).

Deletions are turned white
Insertions are in ()
{option1 | option 2}


We should each be able to determine what our child(ren) isare exposed to. It is a parental responsibility not the responsibility of the library or any other group. While some may object to the material being there, others like myself object to the removal of the materials. I raised two sons and was very particular that they have information that was age appropriate. It was difficult but I did it. It is a parental responsibility.

Many times certain issues are difficult for a child. By making access to the information they need more difficult we are stunting their ability to learn possibly about themselves and others at a time when they most need the knowledge and often the support. This action would send a message to some of our children that their lives do not count as much as other children's lives and that their life is so different it needs to be kept in an out of the way place away from the rest of society.

Access to information is essential to our Democracy. It is essential for healthy growth of children and essential for a healthy community. {This (action) | The act we are debating} is in essence banning books, a violation of our freedom of expression and our freedom to access information.

Who is going to determine what is or is not appropriate information? As an adult I resent anyone deciding for me what I should or should not have access to. I resent someone else deciding what my child should have access to. The information is there, some not to my liking certainly but it is very easy to see it and put it away. To have a(ny) group of people determine what the rest of us have access to is a frightening step in the wrong direction for a country that loves freedom.

The first amendment of the the constitution indisputably protects the right of citizens to receive information. In order to exercise one's rights to free speech, press and political freedom we must have free access to information. It is inappropriate for a group from any institution including churches, schools, libraries or the government to restrict the rights of citizens in this way. To remove or make difficult the access to material simply because of a dislike of the information contained is unconstitutional. To do this to promote an ideology that is not shared by all in order to influence politically, religiously, nationally or to promote their difference of opinion is outrageous and again, unconstitutional.

I had changed some of it already then I added your changes and I think I have what I will go with unless someone else adds something I just have to use. We have another member who will be speaking about this with a different slant that counters the religious motivation behind this.

My name is ----- ------. I am a life long citizen of --- County. I raised two sons here and pay my taxes here that support this library. I am a former Registered Nurse. I am a member of the Topeka Chapter of the Kansas Equality Coalition and a founder and Vice Chair of the State Board of the Kansas Equality Coalition. I am a long time member of the Topeka Symphony and am well acquainted with many of the arts, often controversial, including literature. ***this section is based on what I learned from a GLAAD media training session. It feels silly to me but it seems to work. The last part about the symphony seems unneeded but somehow it connects me with the community again.***

I am speaking today as a citizen.

We should each be able to determine what our children are exposed to. It is a parental responsibility not the responsibility of the library or any other group. While some may object to some of the material there others like myself object to the removal of the material. I raised two sons and was very particular that they have information that was age appropriate. It was difficult but I did it. It is a parental responsibility.

One of the reasons I am against this policy is that certain issues are often difficult for a child. Making it difficult to access the information they need stunts their ability to learn. Issues that are possibly about themselves and others at a time when they most need the knowledge and often the support. This action would send a message to some of our children that their lives do not count as much as other children's lives and that their life is so different and either unimportant or repulsive it needs to be kept in an out of the way place away from the rest of society.

Access to information is essential to our Democracy. It is essential for healthy growth of children and essential for a healthy community. The act that we are discussing is in essence banning books, a violation of our freedom of expression and our freedom to access information.

Who is going to determine what is or is not appropriate information? As an adult I resent anyone deciding for me what I should or should not have access to. I resent someone else deciding what my child should have access to. The information is there, some not to my liking certainly but it is very easy to see it and put it away if you do not like it. To have any group determine what the rest of us have access to is a frightening step in the wrong direction for a country that loves freedom.

The first amendment of the the constitution indisputably protects the right of citizens to receive information. In order to exercise one's rights to free speech, press and political freedom we must have free access to information. It is inappropriate for a group from any institution including churches, schools, libraries or the government to restrict the rights of citizens in this way. To remove or make difficult access to material simply because of a dislike of the information contained is unconstitutional. To do this to promote an ideology that is not shared by all in order to influence politically, religiously or nationally is outrageous and again, unconstitutional.

Much of my information was obtained by reading the case Sund v Wichita Falls.

In the end the decision in that case was to allow the information to remain accessible in the library.

THANK YOU so much for the help. I hope it goes well. I HATE doing this, in fact I NEVER do this if I can possibly get out of it. :) It should be fine except I am pretty certain the crowd there will not be on my side. Oh well, that makes it more fun right? :eyes:

Does it have a reconsideration of materials policy? I work for a public library and our board would not be able to remove items from the library collection without following the specific procedures outlined in these documents

I think that was probably thrown out with the newly appointed board. I am woefully out of date with all of this since it was not a problem until recently and has been kept so quiet that I had no idea until today this was happening.

I will find out what I can, I had plans tonight but I think I am going to have to stay and hear this out. This is a bully act, typical of our Mayor IMO and typical of the church that is pushing this. We have to stop this. I will know more tonight I hope. I would think with public comments they will at least let us know what materials they are planning on either banning or moving into a separate part of the building.

This is a flashback to every movie that terrified me as a kid. The restriction of information just blows my mind.