The True Library Critics Who Need Lessons

It's another day to school Library Critics who think they understand rules, logic, journalism, or recent history.

U-Turn in Education and We are Concerned continues to produce articles attacking the Library Board members, but often without evidence. Or if they do present evidence, they do so through such a misinterpretation of the evidence that they may as well be writing their narrative.

Two recent articles perfectly illustrate their failures to “get basic facts right” or to understand that you cannot call people stupid without evidence. It’s obvious that I need to write more satire about Ms. Fade, the underroo-wearing middle-aged Kangaroo failed journalist.

Let’s focus instead on the anonymous blog writer’s failures to understand almost every concept in the two articles Mrs. Fade (since we don’t have a nom de plume, I’ll provide one) wrote.

Misapplication of Robert's Rules of Order

While WAC repeatedly invokes Robert's Rules of Order to criticize the board, their arguments demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of parliamentary procedure. Let's examine several instances:

1. Meeting Minutes Content: In "Secrets That Money Can Buy," WAC criticizes the board for wanting to change meeting minutes practices, presenting this as an attempt to "rewrite history by removing our ability to access the very little transparency available." However, Robert's Rules explicitly states that minutes should primarily record actions taken, not detailed discussions: "The minutes should contain mainly a record of what was done at the meeting, not what was said by the members" (RONR, 11th ed., p. 468). The board's desire to focus minutes on actions rather than discussions aligns with standard parliamentary procedure.

2. Abstention Explanation: WAC criticizes John Garrity for abstaining from a vote "without providing a reason as required by Robert's Rules of Order." This is incorrect. Robert's Rules does not require members to explain abstentions. While members may explain their votes, there is no parliamentary requirement to justify abstaining. In fact, Robert's Rules states that members have the right to abstain from voting (RONR, 11th ed., p. 407).

3. Voting Requirements: WAC claims that certain votes were improper, but they fail to understand the distinction between majority of members present and majority of the entire membership. Robert's Rules distinguishes between these types of requirements for different actions, and WAC's criticism fails to account for these distinctions.

4. Bylaw Amendments: WAC presents the board's decision to amend bylaws as though it were improper, but according to the HickChristian timeline, the board followed proper procedure by voting on the amendment during a regular meeting. Robert's Rules permits bylaw amendments by a two-thirds vote with appropriate notice (RONR, 11th ed., p. 593-594), and WAC provides no evidence that these requirements weren't met.

5. Executive Session Justification: WAC criticizes closed sessions but fails to acknowledge that Robert's Rules recognizes the legitimacy of executive sessions for matters such as legal advice. Their claim that "this blatant act of library staff omission and accountability is proof that the majority of the board is actively violating their bylaws" demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how bylaws and parliamentary procedure interact with state laws permitting closed sessions for certain purposes.

These misapplications of Robert's Rules of Order suggest that WAC's criticisms are based on a superficial understanding of parliamentary procedure, selectively applied to support their predetermined narrative rather than to provide an accurate assessment of the board's procedural compliance.

Reversing Reality: Who Actually Proposed Book Labeling?

The most glaring misrepresentation in the WAC articles is their portrayal of who advocated for labeling books with LGBTQ+ content. WAC repeatedly implies that conservative board members (whom they disparagingly call the "4 Horsemen") were pushing to label or restrict such materials.

In reality, documented evidence shows it was actually Janis Hagen who proposed the labeling of books with LGBTQ+ content—not the conservative board members she now criticizes. According to HickChristian's reporting dated September 9, 2024, "The Liberal board members brought it up and asked that the categories be 'LGBT' books... Janis Hagen is the one who proposes..." The conservative board members subsequently tabled this discussion, effectively stopping the very labeling initiative that WAC incorrectly attributes to them.

This complete reversal of facts fundamentally undermines WAC's central narrative and raises serious questions about their credibility and motives.

Ironic Terminology: The "4 Horsemen"

It's worth noting the irony in WAC's choice to label conservative board members as the "4 Horsemen" — appropriating biblical apocalyptic imagery while simultaneously criticizing these same board members for their purported Christian values. This rhetorical choice reveals more about WAC's biases than it does about the board members they criticize.

Credentials Conveniently Omitted

WAC articles repeatedly question the qualifications of board members, suggesting they lack the expertise to govern a library effectively. For example, in "Ignorance on Full Display," they mock John Garrity for asking questions about the Dewey Decimal System and other library operations.

What the articles fail to mention is that all three board members they criticize have substantial professional backgrounds that are easily discoverable on LinkedIn:

• John Garrity is a Program Manager specializing in IT security project management with over a decade of experience at major corporations including Verizon, American Airlines, and Intel Corporation. His background includes managing complex projects and security operations.

• Echo Schneider is a Managing Consultant at Guidehouse with expertise in healthcare IT, AI, and project management. She holds a B.S. in Health Care Administration from Idaho State University and serves as President of the Board of Trustees for Christian County Library.

• Diana Brazeale is an attorney and owner of Brazeale Law Firm, LLC based in Branson, Missouri. Her legal expertise and understanding of regulatory compliance represent valuable skills for board governance and navigating complex legal matters affecting the library.

While these backgrounds don't specifically include library science, they represent significant management, legal, and leadership experience – qualities certainly relevant to board governance. The Missouri statute (182.640) governing library board appointments doesn't require library science credentials, only that trustees be residents of the county they represent and not elected officials.

The fact that WAC fails to acknowledge these readily available credentials while questioning board members' competence demonstrates either a lack of basic research or a deliberate omission of information that contradicts their narrative.

Chronology Without Context

The WAC articles present isolated incidents without providing a coherent timeline of events, making it difficult for readers to understand the full context. They neglect to mention key events outlined in the HickChristian timeline, such as:

• The August 27, 2024 board meeting where book labeling was initially discussed and proposed by Janis Hagen

• The October 11, 2024 legal communication regarding the Virden v. Crawford County decision

• The September 23-26, 2024 legal proceedings involving board member Janis Hagen as a plaintiff against other board members

This selective presentation creates a misleading narrative by omitting crucial context about the legal challenges facing the board and the true origins of controversial discussions.

Closed Sessions and Legal Context

WAC articles criticize the board for holding closed sessions, implying this represents secrecy and a lack of transparency. What they fail to acknowledge is that Missouri law explicitly permits closed sessions for legal counsel – a necessity given that board member Janis Hagen and former board lawyer Harry Styron have filed litigation against the board.

This omission represents a significant failure to provide readers with essential legal context for understanding board actions.

Logical Fallacies Throughout

The WAC articles employ numerous logical fallacies that undermine their arguments. Here are several explicit examples:

1. Ad hominem attacks: Instead of addressing the merits of board decisions, they resort to personal attacks, calling members "stupid" and questioning their intelligence. In "Ignorance on Full Display," they write: "Questions such as 'does the library use the Dewey Decimal System,' or 'what's the age of consent in Missouri,' or 'how are book displays created' highlight the lack of knowledge about librarianship." Rather than recognizing these as legitimate questions from new board members seeking to understand operations, WAC characterizes them as proof of incompetence.

2. False attribution: They attribute viewpoints to board members that are contradicted by documented evidence. In "Ignorance on Full Display," WAC claims the board wants "to enact their own Library Bill of No Rights" and presents an inverted version of the Library Bill of Rights as though it represents the board's actual position. This completely misrepresents the board's stated concerns about certain ALA positions.

3. False dichotomy: In "Secrets That Money Can Buy," they write: "The conclusion is either this lawyer is horrendously bad at his job or Schneider is lying in effort to purposely keep the community in the dark." This ignores numerous other possible explanations for the situation described.

4. Straw man argument: Their "Library Bill of No Rights" parody states: "Materials should be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation." This is a complete distortion of the board's actual positions, making it easier to attack a position no one actually holds.

5. Hasty generalization: WAC writes: "For a group that 'claims' they haven't been working behind the scenes to circumvent the law, they are mysteriously getting caught in the act. A lot." This extrapolates from limited examples to sweeping conclusions about consistent illegal behavior.

6. Appeal to emotion: Rather than presenting factual arguments, WAC relies heavily on emotional language: "See how comfortable they are at breaking laws. Corruption, plain as day," and "Fed up yet? You will be." These emotional appeals substitute for substantive analysis.

7. Guilt by association: WAC repeatedly links the board to apocalyptic imagery with their "four horsemen" terminology, attempting to associate them with destruction rather than addressing their actual policies.

8. Confirmation bias: Every action by certain board members is interpreted in the most negative light possible: "We would also feel the crushing pressure to redact meeting minutes since it's not looking good for them." This assumes malicious intent rather than considering legitimate procedural reasons.

Journalistic Standards Abandoned

Professional journalism requires verification, context, and fairness. WAC articles fail these basic standards:

1. Verification: Many claims lack supporting evidence or citations to primary sources.

2. Context: They selectively highlight certain details while omitting crucial background information, such as who actually proposed book labeling.

3. Fairness: They make no apparent effort to present alternative viewpoints or to contact criticized individuals for comment.

4. Transparency: The authors themselves remain anonymous, making it impossible to evaluate their credentials or potential conflicts of interest.

The Shield of Anonymity

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the "We Are Concerned" operation is their complete anonymity. By hiding behind this anonymous façade, the authors appear to believe they can make any claim, no matter how false or defamatory, without accountability. This lack of transparency allows them to spread misinformation without facing the professional or personal consequences that would normally result from such factually challenged reporting.

The contrast is striking: while the board members they criticize have public profiles with verifiable credentials easily accessible on LinkedIn, the WAC authors remain hidden in the shadows. This one-sided transparency creates an unfair dynamic where public servants with established professional backgrounds are attacked by anonymous critics who face no similar scrutiny.

The anonymous nature of the blog raises serious questions about who is behind these attacks and what their true motivations might be. It also prevents readers from evaluating potential conflicts of interest or biases that might influence the content.

Conclusion

When analyzed carefully, the "We Are Concerned" articles appear less focused on legitimate concern for library governance and more on advancing a particular political narrative through misinformation and character assassination. The fact that they completely reverse the truth about who proposed labeling LGBTQ+ books – attributing Janis Hagen's own proposal to her opponents – is particularly troubling.

Citizens seeking to understand the Christian County Library situation would be better served by consulting primary sources such as meeting minutes, legal documents, and viewing board meetings directly rather than relying on WAC's demonstrably flawed reporting.

The library board controversy deserves substantive discussion about governance, transparency, and community values – a discussion that WAC's factually inaccurate and logically flawed articles ultimately hinder rather than help.