“A Lie Told Often Enough Becomes The Truth”


The title of today’s post is a quote from Lenin, and it seems particularly applicable to much of the rhetoric being generated about Park Ridge Library’s new “business” policy.

Actually, that policy is more a “tutor” policy than a “business” one, primarily because tutors seem to be the only people regularly fattening their wallets using the no-overhead tutoring “offices” at the Library. And now that a policy has been put in place that requires them to register and pay a $10/hour user fee, they are trying to exact revenge on the Library Board for adopting such a policy.

How? By spreading misinformation and outright lies on social media.

If information truly is “the currency of democracy” (as Jefferson stated), then misinformation and lies are the counterfeit currency.

So we’re devoting today’s post to calling out some of the folks who have lied through their teeth about the Library’s new policy, or about the Library Board, or about the owner of one particular tutoring business who appeared at two Library Board meetings to question the fairness of his competitors getting taxpayer-subsidized office space that he effectively was paying for through the RE tax portion of his office rent.

And, in the process, we’ll also rebut a few lies being told about this blog and its editor.

But first we want to explain once again our use of the word “freeloader” because more than a few delicate souls out there are suggesting they’ve been victimized, traumatized and even “bullied” by our use of that word as shorthand for people who view local government as their personal ATM, funded by OPM (“Other People’s Money”).

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines “freeloader” as:

“a person [like a tutor) who is supported by or seeks support from another [like the Library, a/k/a the taxpayers] without making an adequate return [like paying a $10/hour fee].”

Merriam-Webster’s synonyms for freeloader include “bloodsucker,” “leech,” “moocher” and “sponger.” So while we chose “freeloader” as the most benign of those alternatives, we’re willing to consider one of the others – especially “leech” – if enough freeloaders request it. It should also be noted that Merriam-Webster lists “parasite” as another synonym, but we’ve reserved that for non-resident freeloaders who can’t even claim to be paying Park Ridge RE taxes to justify their freeloading.

With that out of the way we now return to our featured topic: lies and the liars who tell them.

Let’s start with Caroline Vengazo, the teacher/tutor whose claim to fame is creating the deceptive Change.Org. petition that demanded “Keep the Park Ridge Public Library a FREE Public Space for Everyone” – when what she really meant was: “Keep the Park Ridge Public Library an OVERHEAD-FREE Public OFFICE Space” for herself and her fellow tutors.

In addition to that deceptive petition issue, Vengazo also provided a write up that included the following lies:

LIE: “The single complaint that started this debate was a local businessperson who employs tutors….”

FACT: This debate was started by this editor’s questioning the for-profit tutors’ monopolizing of Library tables for hours on end – and conversing in a manner that disturbed other patrons – more than a month before Jim Giovannini of Academic Tutoring Centers first appeared before the Board.

LIE: “[Giovannini] has a buddy on the…Library Board” who pushed a tutor policy “in an act of political cronyism….”

FACT: Since Vengazo didn’t have the nerve to identify that “buddy,” we can’t say for sure whom she meant by that comment. But if she meant this editor, he has never – even to this day – communicated with Giovannini other than during the latter’s two appearances before the Library Board at its August 18, 2015 and September 8, 2015 meetings.

LIE: “[I]nformation provided by the Board lacks transparency regarding their plans as to how the funds will be utilized….”

FACT: The Board made it clear that the funds from tutor fees would go into the Library’s General Fund.

LIE: “The library will now need additional staff to police all library patrons who use this public space….”

FACT: The Library’s Director has consistently told the Board that no additional personnel will be needed to enforce the policy.

Not to be outdone when it comes to outright lying – or, in her case, maybe it’s just aggravated cluelessness with an intent to mope? – about local government matters is Kathy Panattoni Meade, headmistress of the Park Ridge Concerned Homeowners Group FB page and a regular on the “closed group” (i.e., members only) Park Ridge Virtual Chatterbox and the “closed group” (ditto) Park Ridge Citizens Online FB pages.

KPM’s comments demonstrate not only her embrace of Vengazo’s lie about Giovannini’s being some Board member’s “buddy” but she actually inflated that lie by branding Giovannini “a good friend of several library board members” who enacted the new policy for the purpose of “squelching [Giovannini’s] competition.”

Among the many other KPM Lies are:

* LIE: that both the City’s and Library’s legal counsel “advised against this tutoring policy”;

FACT: counsel’s advice merely suggested a need to expand the policy to all one-on-one business activities at the    Library, which the Library Board promptly did;

* LIE: that the Board “won’t even let the library buy new chairs for the meeting room”;

FACT: the new chair purchase was deferred because the Director didn’t follow the LIbrary’s procurement policy; and

* LIE: that the current Board wants “people to stop using the library so they can stop wasting ‘their tax dollars’ on a socialist institution”;

FACT: the current Board initiated a new focus on improving the Library to attract more patrons and reverse the several-year decline in customer visits, circulation and program attendance – which decline has continued notwithstanding the seeming increase in tutor use of the Library.

Those jumping on the baseless “blame Giovannini” bandwagon include Jenny Ftacek Sanderson (“everybody knows it was Academic Tutors who started this”); and Carol Simner (the Board “obviously wanted to fix things for their friend.”)

Deserving of special “lying fearmonger” recognition, however, are those who insist that this Library Board wants to actually shut-down and/or demolish the Library, including: Nichole Flynn (“this [board] seems intent on dismantling the library” because it “hates the library and it’s [sic] patrons”); Dena Lucy (“Trizna would love to see it bulldozed and a Barnes & Noble in its place”); Park Board member Cindy Grau (“This is what they want – to close the Library” because “[m]any of them aren’t patrons” or “fans”); and Joshua Nichols (Board members who voted for the policy “appear to want everyone to stop using the library so they can close it down”).

These last four fibbers apparently were so hell-bent on lying about this Board that they didn’t even care how incredible those lies sounded in the light of things like Joe Egan’s, Char Foss-Eggemann’s, Pat Lamb’s, Dean Parisi’s and this editor’s vote – in July 2014 – to repeal the prior board’s decision to close the Library on summer Sundays, a closure about which not one of the aforementioned fibbing fearmongers publicly complained.

Nor do they try to explain how shutting down the Library jibes with Egan’s, Foss-Eggemann’s and this editor’s push for the November 2014 referendum that gave the Library an extra $1 million a year for four years – while their fellow Board members at that time preferred to sit around and berate the City Council for not giving the Library that extra $1 million a year from the City’s tax levy.

Shutting down the Library also flies in the face of the current Board’s hiring of architects to come up with renovation ideas and other ways of making the Library more functional and attractive to the entire community rather than to just one or two special interests. That’s the point Trustee Mike Reardon was making when he stated, during the January 19, 2016 meeting:

“I have sworn an oath to act on the behalf of all the citizens of Park Ridge, not only the ones sitting in this room.”

That’s the same oath ALL Library Trustees have taken.

Meanwhile, the Library Board’s tutor critics have pledged their troth to their own pocketbooks, even if it means freeloading off their fellow taxpayers and telling lies to deflect attention away from their self-interest and greed.

But leave it to that self-serving socialist, Mary Wynn Ryan, to question this Board’s motives by lying about how this editor “successfully thwarted a referendum a decade ago to renovate and enlarge the library.” Were Ryan capable of telling the truth, or capable of reciting non-revisionist history, she would have admitted that the November 2002 referendum had nothing to do with any renovation or enlargement of the Library. Instead, it consisted of three questions, the principal one asking the voters whether the Library should be demolished and replaced with a $20 million-plus (not counting additional millions in debt service) new library double the size of the current one.

And to the extent that new-library plan was “thwarted,” it was not by this editor but by the VOTERS, 8,948 (60.73%) to 5,786 (39.27%). Ryan respects the voters only when they vote the way she wants them to, which might explain her revisionist history of the 2002 referendum.

Ryan was voted off the the Park Board last April, but her self-serving socialist seat has been filled by her fellow class warrior, the aforementioned Ms. Grau, who unequivocally claims this editor “was reappointed [to the Library Board in July 2014] after the commnuity asked that he not be.” That lie is disproved by the official minutes of the Mayor’s Advisory Board’s June 16, 2014 meeting, which reflect this editor’s unanimous recommendation for reappointment by then-mayor Schmidt; and by the minutes of the full City Council’s July 7, 2014 meeting reflecting the unanimous approval of that recommendation – without even ONE “community” objection.

Perhaps Ms. Grau is suffering from the same aversion to the truth that plagues Ms. Ryan. Or maybe she’s just “Feeling the Bern” from advocating for the replacement of all City officials with candidates holding “different values” who can “form an alternate vision for our community.”

From what we’ve seen and heard from Ms. Grau so far, that “alternate vision” will mean a lot more “free” stuff for the shameless freeloader contingent – which means it will need to be sold to gullible residents by even more lies.

And paid for with more OPM from that government ATM.

Robert J. Trizna


Park Ridge Public Library Trustee

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this post are solely those of the Editor in that capacity, and not in his capacity as Library Trustee. None of these opinions should be viewed as representing those of the Library, its Board, its staff, or any other Trustees.

To read or post comments, click on title.

22 comments so far

I for one applaud your diligence protecting us from the Vernon in this town. I have read the things all of the people you have mentioned have written in fb and on your blog. I wish I had that kind of time to imagine and complain endlessly about everything. Thanks for being the person that deals with the negative elements. In closing why do we have a brand new pool? as I recall there was a referendum that voted it down.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Thanks, but who’s “Vernon.”

We have “a brand new pool” because there was NO referendum on it. Those new Centennial water park referendums that voters shot down were why the 2012 version of the park board didn’t have the guts to go to referendum on the $7 million of long-term bonded debt to build that second-rate/third-rate facility.

I am a retired teacher who used to tutor middle school students in math. I used to go to my students’ homes or, if that was not workable, they could come to my home. Occasionally, I would meet them at Starbucks or Panera. I never thought about going to the library for the same reasons it sounds like the library board passed the new policy. I can see how those tutors who lose the library don’t want to pay, but I wonder whether they don’t want to register and let the library keep track of their hours because they don’t want an independent record of the number of hours they are tutoring at the library.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Since you haven’t identified yourself, we can’t give you the “retired teacher” or “tutor” status.

But we also wondered why the tutors so strenuously opposed registration and signing in and out. But if one wanted to keep one’s hours secret, avoiding a sign-in/out process would be a good first step.

Liars, liars, pants on fire. Thanks for pointing out what liars these people are. And thanks, Cindy Grau, for confirming that not voting for you for the park board was the right decision. Too bad we are stuck with you for another 3 years.

Why don’t you run against Mayor Maloney, Ms Grau, that would be the closest thing he could have to unopposed.

EDITOR’S NOTE: That could be an interesting race – but maybe she should wait and see how Bernie Sanders does.


Mayor Marty?? You mean the Mayor Marty who against advice of taxpayer paid for council voted to appeal a case against a local small businessman who followed all the rules….that Mayor Marty??

You mean the Mayor Marty you ran into closed discussion (now there is transparency for ya!!) to try (alone with others) and fix this mess….that Mayor Marty??

You mean the Mayor Marty who was quoted in the paper as stating the following: “I supported the appeal based on the (cost) estimate our attorneys gave us. I was not supporting an appeal to be a nuisance……” Even though those same attorneys who gave the estimate clearly advised against an appeal……that Mayor Marty???

EDITOR’S NOTE: Yes, THAT Mayor Marty. The one who probably shouldn’t have needed a nasty-gram from the developer’s attorney, or a closed-session (legal, but weak) meeting with the City’s attorney, to do the right thing – but who cared more than he should have for the folks who showed up and beefed about a totally legal development.

The Mayor Marty who then DID the right thing – unlike his “peers” at D-64 and D-207 who ALWAYS hide in closed session and STILL make the wrong decisions, time and time again. Yeah, THAT Mayor Marty.

I completely agree about d64 and d207 but, in this case, you only use it to cloud the issue. The mayor did at least 4 things you have hammered (with out mercy) other people for.

1. Bent over for a “special interest”.
2. Complete disregard for taxpayer money.
3. Ran to a closed session.
4. Gave a complete BS excuse after the fact.

This happened on Monday and there has not been a peep from you. Instead you call out a bunch of citizens taking liberty with the truth on social media (now there is a shock!!) related to a battle you have already won. Just shows that you take care of your friends (Shubert and Moran as well). I suppose there is some honor in that.

The only thing more hypocritical is the vote itself. I bet those who voted yes would go on about too much government and regulations getting in the way of small business, that is unless they say so.

EDITOR’S NOTE: No, the only thing more hypocritical is you – for not showing up at City Hall, announcing who you are, and making these beefs to his face?

We called out “a bunch of citizens” for lying through their teeth “related to a battle” that they and their freeloading buddies (along with the H-A’s Ms. Johnson and the Journal’s Ms. Lunde) are still fighting; and that YOU’RE still fighting, judging by your comments on 01.25 @ 11:41 a.m. and 12:21 p.m., on 01.27 @ 6:37 p.m., on 01.29 @ 2:48 p.m. and 7:44 p.m., and 01.30 @ 8:53 a.m.

Not buying it. You can keep saying you don’t want to shut down the library but your actions speak otherwise. They speak very loudly to the contrary.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Guess what? Nobody cares what some anonymous commentator is or isn’t “buying.”

Excellent post. You have worked hard to fix a non-existent problem where government should not intervene -free market forces should control, and you did it without figuring out, by referendum or otherwise, what the majority of the taxpayers want regarding use of library. Bravo. Stay true to your friends because you certainly ain’t staying true to your principles dog.

EDITOR’S NOTE: “Government” – i.e., the taxpayer-supported Library – already intervened to give overhead-free office space to the opportunists who would take advantage of it, and to the detriment of their competitors who actually rent space and pay taxes that go to the Library.

But if it’s a referendum you want, ask the Council to put a repeal question on the November ballot and let’s see how many voters want you freeloaders and non-resident parasites to get free office space.

I think it sucks that people will lie about things they don’t like. And when I tried to check out Park Ridge Citizens Online and Park Ridge Virtual Chatter, I discovered they were “closed” and I could not access them unless I wanted to join.

It sounds like some kind of club judging by a recent post by the head blogger, who says there are 100+ people waiting to join and talks about referrals and some kind of “rules” that he/she gets to arbitrarily enforce

What’s that all about? Are they trying to control who can read and comment?

EDITOR’S NOTE: It sounds that way.

The credibility of the people you have outed should justifiably go down the drain, especially Ms. Grau who is not only an elected official but seems intent on becoming a political force even if she cannot seem to tell the truth.

Dog, you forgot some of the liar liar Cindy Grau’s greatest hits on FB!

“the fee is to chase people away”

You want to “shut down the library.”

The board wants “to lower our taxes by cutting services. They are here in every layer of government in Park Ridge.” Huh?

“that’s bullshit. It’s not about space.” Classy.

All-time favorite: “it’s time for civil disobedience”

Grau also says “We need to change our elected officials in town.”

unbelievable that this person is an elected official. Let’s start with her.

I will never put a sign in my yard again for such a person. what a mistake!

EDITOR’S NOTE: It’s hard for us to keep track of all her lies.

You never should have put her sign in your yard in the first place.

I have disagreed with you on some topics but you and a majority of the library board are correct on this point. These tutors and their customers are still trying to bully the board, and they are willing to resort to lies to do it. Hang tough.

Ms Ryan and Ms Grau are birds of a feather, as are their sympathizers on the various Facebook pages. I would love to know how many of them are tutors, relatives of tutors, or customers of tutors all looking out for their own pockets. That’s the kind of society we are turning into, an entitlement crowd portraying themselves as victims the minute they are caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The “entitlement crowd” is shameless, which is why they can shamelessly wrap themselves in the mantle of victimhood the moment they lose their free business offices.

The”Park Ridge Citizens Online” and “Park Ridge Concerned Homeowners Group” FaceBook pages are disgusting. Those have what helped spread the library lies.

Simply: It’s people complaining without proper facts, and even worse complaining & lying to sell their agenda.

Kathy (KPM), owns the most uneducated views in Park Ridge, and spews them non-stop. She then has her few friends , who back her up on her idiocy. Kathy, then thinks she’s a journalist by sharing posts from Park Ridge Herald advocate….(Kathy, we can all see those articles before you post them as breaking news). It’s scary that she owns a home in Park Ridge. I don’t understand why she doesn’t just move to another happier suburb? Is anyone forcing her to stay? I mean, there are birthday parties that could be had for much cheaper in Niles!!! Please go! You create a negative tax footprint here, and for sure a negative intellectual one as well.

The only positive about seeing this daily verbal diarrhea is that you get to see who is posting this nonsense and speak slower if you run into them in town. Or like me, you swear under breath and go other other way.

One of the most disturbing posts/comments recently, was that elected officials should “take the barometer” of public opinion reading the comments on the page. WHAT???!! Please stay away from this garbage and spend your VOLUNTEER time on something else, beside bored, cheap , freeloaders.

FB page people— There are about 10 of you that spew garbage, the rest of us know you are nuts and wrong, so if an elected official did read that rambling, they should know always to go the other way.

It is good though that we learned about Grau and her opinions, because she should be voted out immediately. Lack of local political involvement got us stuck with her on the Park Board. That should be rectified asap. Anything from the “Go Green” whack jobs should immediately be shut down.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Don’t be too hard on this Grau/Meade/Ryan freeloader contingent: they provide a valuable public service by advertising the “Where’s mine?” entitlement mentality that has gained a solid toehold – if not a foothold – in this community.

And thanks to those FB pages, they can be recognized by their mindless greed.

Never in Doubt posting:
Well, Pub-Puppy, seems that I owe you an apology. In these pages I have consistently argued that targeting the tutors was not enough, as you were leaving money on the table by not going after all the business people, including the nannies. You attacked me and my motives, without arguing hardly any facts. I thought this was a sign of weakness, but now I think I get your position.
A recent walk through the 2nd Floor “tutoring” area, at a peak tutoring time, revealed exactly ZERO tutors present. They’re all gone, and the Library is not even charging them yet. So the bad news is that the Library will not even come close to the $80,000 of revenue that was estimated the Library will collect from the tutoring policy, but the good news is that the new policy is practically 100% effective in removing freeloaders.
Next, I imagine that you will turn off the wi-fi and chase out the business people who, by virtue of working alone, have dodged the policy and continue to free-load (according to your definition expressed above). Then, you have only to toss the nannies and the Library will be freed from the parasitic freeloaders who have plagued it for so long, returning it to the taxpayers. Then, a quick renovation and it will be a shining example for all of Chicago-land.
Truly, you are on the right path and I apologize for being so critical. I am now very much looking forward to your next move!

PS – I understand your frustration with your critics, both on this blog and the FB pages. However, you should also point out that a number of tutors have established legitimate businesses outside of the library, and in fact, nearby Academic Tutoring Centers, so this policy has been no friend to Jim Giovannini, who (by his admission to the Library Board) is having trouble making his rent and covering his overhead. Likely, the Tutor Policy has doomed him to further financial distress as his competitors have now “stepped it up”; I can’t see how you have in any way acted as his “friend”. Take THAT, FB trolls!

EDITOR’S NOTE: As we’ve said before, for an anonymous coward you sure talk tough.

Assuming the freeloader and parasite tutors may already have departed, it’s probably because they don’t want any sign-in/sign-out record of all the hours they tutor that the IRS could subpoena. But we’re not going to take your word for that.

And since the policy was never intended to be any “friend to Jim Giovannini” or any other business, your baseless anecdotes about his business mean nothing to us.

I think it’s more likely that tutors are concerned about privacy issues. You have mentioned this issue before, but (as usual) you have given only half-truths regarding the issue. There is a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces in Illinois. My guess: the tutors lack confidence in the Library Staff to maintain confidentiality of data collected, which would be subject to Freedom of Information Act requests. Sounds more like prudence than tax evasion, but I understand why you’re confused.

Please do some professional research before you post your worn-out response.

EDITOR’S NOTE: If you had done YOUR “professional research” you would know that a visit to the Library is no more “private” than a visit to City Hall, the Community Center, or Starbucks: not “private” at all.

As for “confidentiality of data collected,” the only “privacy” concerns implicated by the minimal “data” the Library would be collecting from tutors is the number of hours logged in that can’t otherwise be corroborated by, oh…say…the IRS?

The fact that you call me out as a liar, and then post quotes from me that are expressions of my opinion, indicates that you are at best, not as acquainted with the dictionary as the beginning of your post would indicate, or, that you are lying and misrepresenting me. The first quote you attribute to me is, “this (board) seems intent on dismantling the library board”. That is my impression of the actions of the board. I am allowed both an impression and opinion. The second quote, “we can’t have a library board that hates the library and it’s patrons” is a statement that I stand by. I don’t want a library board that hates the library and I don’t care for board members who refer to it’s patrons as freeloaders and parasites. I try to be very careful with my words. I have never mentioned you or any other board member by name, and I have no desire to drag any one individual through the social media mud. This blog, on the other had, appears to revel in it.

EDITOR’S NOTE: What we “revel in” is transparency and acccountability – two things most public officials, and many people like yourself, do their best to avoid. So, yes, we name names; and we’ll happily let the factual accuracy of what we publish speak for itself.

“[W]e need a new board. [T]his one seems intent on dismantling the library” and “[W]e can’t have a library board that hates the library and it’s patrons” weren’t general statements of opinion made in a vacuum. They were made in the context of a specific FB string ripping into this particular Library Board. So don’t be coy, Ms. Flynn: you knew exactly what you were doing and why.

I owned my statements, and I publicly signed my name to them, so how am I avoiding transparency and accountability? I did not make my statements in a vacuum, nor did I claim to. Like it or not, and I have a feeling that you love it, you have certain reputation in this community and you fuel it with this blog. It is disingenuous to post the things you do in a public watchdog forum and then cry foul when people react to your words. You are vitriolic in your attitude toward certain members of our community and guess what…it doesn’t sit well with some. I am not being coy. I think I have been pretty straight forward. I know exactly what I am saying and why.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This editor is proudly “vitriolic” when it comes to those people – fortunately a minority in our community, whom we have labeled “freeloaders” (residents) and “parasites” (non-residents) – who (according to The Merriam-Webster online dictionary definition of the term) are supported by, or seek support from, another without making an adequate return. Or, put another way, those who consistently ask what their community can do for them rather than what they can do for their community.

And if that “doesn’t sit well with some,” all the better. Because as Churchill said: “You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood for something, sometime in your life.”

Mr. Trizna, you have labeled me a liar in a public forum and then gave no evidence that I lied about anything. I think one could fairly assume, that you made this statement with malice. I stated my impressions and opinions. I never mentioned you by name or disparaged your name in any way. I’m not an expert in online defamation law, but this appears to be check some of the boxes.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Then check some of the boxes, Ms. Flynn.

Meanwhile, your statements and ours – whether facts, impressions or opinions – speak for themselves.

Focus on something irrelevant.

I understand your reluctance to engage your readers in arguments on facts, when (inf fact) most of your arguments are built upon supposition.

Example: you suppose that (former) Library tutors are tax cheats. Any evidence? If you turn them in, you can get up to 10% of underpaid taxes. Put your money where you mouth is, or shut up.

Regarding the Privacy, issue, once you do some research, you will discover that while one has a low expectation of privacy of conversation in a public space, there is a reasonable expectation that personal and professional items are still private. For example, if I conduct my business in the Library and carry a conversation, I have no expectation that my comments are private. However, if I carry my computer into the Library, neither you or any member of the staff has the right to examine its contents. So there is a right to privacy in a public forum.

Chances are decent that, should the tutors sue, you would cost the Library a big legal settlement. Or at least a boat-load of fees for a Pyrrhic Victory.

You’re either too stupid to know this, or too duplicitous to acknowledge it.

After all, it’s easier for craven cowards to pick on citizens (or should I just say “women” and get to the heart of it) for comments they made on a Facebook page than it is to argue a case with no factual or case law support.

Focus on nothing but irrelevant things.

Re-read the Editor’s Note – move your lips if you have to – and you’ll see (if not comprehend) that all we did is suggest one reason why tutors would not want to register and have their hours of work recorded by the Library. There may be others. Or not.

We weren’t talking about “conversation in a public place” – we were talking about simply walking in the door and checking in and out for the purposes of conducting business in the Library, for which there is no – as in N. O. – reasonable expectation of privacy under the law. Irrespective of whether you carry in your computer, a basketball, or your pet Slinky. And nothing in the new Library policy says ANYTHING about ANYBODY examining either your computer or your basketball. Or your pet Slinky.

None of these tutors are ever going to sue when they’ve already shown themselves to be so greedy and cheap that they won’t even spring for the $10/hour user-fee.

You’re playing the “gender card”? How deliciously bold of you, “Never in Doubt” (and also, sadly, never right). Now run off and shuffle the deck again and see if you can come up with a “race” or “LGBT” card for good measure.

Say, Triz, if you’re really serious about getting a new revenue stream going, set up a dunk tank in front of the library and park your publicly-minded self therein. At three balls for five bucks I guarantee you’ll raise more money in two weeks than the tutoring policy will bring in all year, and send staff morale through the roof to boot!

EDITOR’S NOTE: Nice idea, but the only people who might want to throw the balls are too cheap to pony up the $5.

But if you and any of theose other folks – including any staff members who might need their morales boosted – are serious about parting with some money, they should donate it to the Library to cover the $10/hour user-fees for all those tutors who insist that the Library is the best venue for their business but are too cheap and greedy to pay the fee themselves. Income stream AND tutoring problem solved.

You’re welcome.

So …. if I show up with my computer and files, and proceed to work (by myself) for my employer, I should have no reasonable expectation that my documents are private?

Sounds like you need to go back to law school.

Or perhaps you only mean that tutors should have no reasonable expectation of privacy, in which case you need sign up for some CLE on discrimination. Which is, of course, your problem as I have repeatedly pointed out.

If only the policy was consistent as I have suggested, you wouldn’t have to twist yourself and your logic to such an extreme to make your position. But you are too keen on shafting the tutors to notice that you’re shafting the taxpayers.

And such a legal defense! You’re effectively saying that you know the policy is incorrect and possibly illegal, but you’re willing to implement it because you think the tutors are too cheap to challenge it.

Perhaps your next CLE course should be in legal ethics? This link will help you write a better disclaimer.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We’re not sure whether your problem is stupidity or ignorance, so we’ll assume both and try this one last time.

All we said is that there is NO legal “expectation of privacy” regarding anybody’s actual physical presence in the Library, no more so than they would on the street corner; I.e., nobody, including tutors, can have a legal expectation that their visit to the Library and the duration of that visit is or will remain “private” – any more than one could expect “privacy” as to the fact and duration of their standing on the corner of Prospect and Touhy.

And the policy is most definitely not illegal, although we also are confident that cheap and greedy tutors wouldn’t spend their own money to challenge it even if it were.

Hey Mayor Marty. Is this more to that “healthy debate” you were talking about?? Like it or not this reflects on you.

EDITOR’S NOTE: And, like it or not, your cowardly anonymity reflects on the credibility of your comments.

Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


(optional and not displayed)