Windsor Library

An unofficial statement regarding the Clearview Library District property on Main Street

Romey

Hello, I am a member of the Clearview Library District Board of Trustees, BUT I DO NOT SPEAK FOR THE BOARD. The views expressed here are my own, and in no way reflect those of my fellow trustees, the Clearview Library District, or its staff.

As news propagates regarding the possible development of a grocery store, targeted in part, on land currently owned by the Clearview Library District, I wanted to share my perspective on this matter and some of the considerations faced as a Trustee of the library district.

The Clearview Library District’s land on Main Street was purchased in 2016, authorized by the Board of Trustees at the time, using reserve funds, and that space was designated as a site for a future regional library. In 2017 and 2018, the Library District put mill levy initiatives on the ballot to finance the construction of a  regional library, measures that did not pass in either election. In 2021, as part of the long-range planning initiatives, the Board of Trustees drafted and approved A Plan For the Future Facilities Plan, which specifies the usage of the land:

The district looks to maintain ownership of the property at the intersection of Main Street and Chimney Park Drive. While there are no immediate plans for this property, it may benefit future collaborations for potential shared facilities or a cultural campus.

clearview library district facilities plan, page 26

Given that the library district has previously pursued a library on this property, along with the designation in the Facilities Plan, library law restricts the Board’s ability to list, market, negotiate and sell that property to private entities (such as a commercial grocer) without altering the facilities plan and classifying that property as “Surplus”. Such a designation presents additional caveats and essentially becomes a disavowment of the property for strategic considerations. My understanding is that once it is designated “Surplus”, it is extremely challenging to reverse that classification for potential future use by the library district.

Earlier this summer, at the behest of the Town of Windsor, members of the Board met with a realtor associated with the grocer looking to build on that section of town that includes the library’s land. We attended those discussions in good faith, and with an open mind, explored options regarding a possible sale of this property. It was at that point that we were advised by the library district’s attorney regarding the library laws summarized above and the challenges that arise when considering non-solicited offers for strategic library property.

Speaking only for myself, I firmly believe that planning for a future regional library is essential in serving the needs of our communities. I respect the work of past boards in studying different possible locations and selecting the best option at the time. To preserve the goals outlined in our long-range plan, the library district requires a plot of land on or near a major artery road, in a location near the heart of the library district’s population. Any sale of the library land should enable the continuation of those goals.

Additionally, the purchase price of the property may be utilized for the necessary reserve balances needed to obtain the Certificates of Participation that could fund the Severance branch.

Clearview Library District FAcilities PLan, Page 26

Those that believe a regional library is not in the best interests of our communities must still acknowledge the value of the property as a library district asset, appreciating at a greater rate than the investment options available through library law. As a Trustee, I have a fiduciary obligation to the library district, and as such, take the stewardship of this asset seriously. When considering the land from a fiduciary perspective, I am looking at the land not at today’s value, but at the potential appreciation at a time when its sale would be needed to cover the operating costs of the district.

The need for another grocer in Windsor is not lost on me. As a King Soopers customer, I am all too familiar with the crowded conditions in Windsor and empathize with my fellow east-side residents in having a store closer to our homes. However, my role as a Trustee is to do what is best for the library district first; as well as creatively collaborate to find a solution that is best for Windsor and the other communities in the library district.

Given the friction involved with reclassifying the land and the inability to reverse it, a compelling opportunity that addresses my expressed considerations and concerns is required for my support to modify the Facilities Plan.

It is also important that we as a community engage in conversation over this matter, with opportunities for input in this important dialogue. I welcome your feedback and suggestions and can be reached through email at jeromey.balderrama@clearviewlibrary.org

An Unofficial Statement Re: Clearview Library Program Policy Changes

An Unofficial Statement Re: Clearview Library Program Policy Changes

Romey

Hello, I am a member of the Clearview Library Board of Trustees, BUT DO NOT SPEAK FOR THE BOARD. However, I would like to provide some context regarding the proposed Program Policy changes that are being considered.

First off, I encourage you to separate this policy from this or any particular program, and as with any policy, is a general principle that applies to ALL programs, regardless of their content or intention. Also, please keep in mind that the Library Board of Trustees does not have input into program content or subjects.

As a parent of two children under 10, we all want to keep our children safe and ensure that the Clearview Library is a safe place for them. As a parent, I do care about programming and make my personal choices on which programs they can attend. At the same time, I would be extremely concerned to know that any unattached adult could walk off the street, join a program meant for minors, photograph, and record videos of them for their purposes. For every parent with good intentions (e.g. preemptively observing a program), there are unfortunately adults in our community that have nefarious or predatory intentions. This policy change addresses that particular loophole, ensuring that contact with outside adults is limited in a program designated for minors.

Update 25 Apr 6:30pm: After conferring with community members and receiving excellent feedback, two points should be clarified:
1) The version included in the Library Board’s Packet for the April meeting, is a draft version, that has been provided to the Board for initial feedback.
2) The draft Program Policy Document could better clarify the attendance of parents in their child’s programs. I plan to suggest to the board a clarification that parents/guardians are permitted to accompany their children to any programs. However, their child must be in attendance at that event to enable parent/guardian attendance.

The Clearview Library employees undergo criminal background checks, as well as any volunteers that work with minors. When working with kids, the volunteers are supervised by the library’s excellent staff members. This mirrors similar policies found at schools. Performing such diligence against adults who drop into events is not feasible, therefore this policy change was drafted to ensure our library remains a safe place for our community’s children.

While I hope you come to Thursday’s meeting and make your voice heard, the structure of these meetings isn’t conducive to a dialog, where questions can be asked and constructive conversations can take place. As such, I would invite you to reach out to me or any other Library Trustee directly. I’m more than happy to answer questions, hear your viewpoint, and work together to improve our community. I can be reached at jeromey.balderrama@clearviewlibrary.org or by phone at 970.372.0738. Like you, I am a hard-working American, as well as a newly single parent, so my phone time before Thursday may be limited, but will try to return as many messages as I can. If you would like to discuss this face-to-face, contact me to make arrangements.

Libraries: Palaces for the People

Romey

I realize that some may roll their eyes when I pontificate about the importance of libraries and its transforming role in our society, but I was pleasantly surprised and pleased to discover the “Palaces for the People” episode in the 99% Invisible podcast.

Check out the “Palaces for the People” episode of 99% Invisible

Sociologist Eric Klinenberg discusses the diminishing amount of truly public spaces, available for all, and the need for communities to invest in their Social Infrastructure the same way we’d invest in other types of infrastructure. He goes on to illustrate the way libraries are changing their role and need such changes in their architecture to accommodate the shift.

I would challenge those that are skeptical about the importance or relevancy of libraries to listen to this episode and take it into consideration when talking about the need for communities to invest in Palaces for the People.


Reflections on attending the DQSH Protest

Reflections on attending the DQSH Protest

Romey

Last Saturday I attended the Clearview Library Drag Queen Story Hour as a counter-protester. This was my first time ever making a political sign and exercising my First Amendment rights in this way, and was quite an interesting experience.

The story hour itself was a registration-required event, and had filled up in the prior week. Apparently there was a 200 person waiting list (the largest room in the library had a max occupancy of 80). Outside were about 100 people in the designated “free speech zone” – an area 30 feet from the entrance to permit library patrons and story hour participants to arrive. Of the 100, it was about a 1/3 to 2/3 split between protesters against the event and supporters/counter-protesters.

Protesters seemed to fall into two large camps: people protesting on religious/moral grounds, with signs citing biblical verses and various religious and moral messages about corrupting children, as well as conservatives there that were “fighting the Left”. It was questionable as to whether some of the protesters were part of the Alt-Right, but some of the protesters seemed to be part of some larger conservative-based movement.

As for the supporters, there were also 2 segments: those drawing attention to the LGBTQ issues, counter-protesting the intolerance, as well as those generally supporting the library, freedom of speech, and general opposition to the protesters. I would count myself among the latter group, but my nuanced position seemed to confuse people on both sides at some point.

When I got there at 9:45, it wasn’t clear where people were standing, so I just stood on the corner and held up my signs. A lot of people who would later stand with the “against” protesters told me they liked my signs and were conversing with me. Apparently, some event supporters yelled obscenities at me as well, but I didn’t hear them. Then when the lines became apparent and I saw someone I knew, I went and stood next to her, at which point I had a bunch of supporters come up and apologize to me. A lot of the protesters suddenly had problems with my signs. As the morning progressed, a few supporters from the back came up to me and said they liked my signs.

The protests were mostly civil, both sides chanting back and forth. There were a few minor confrontations, but the police did an excellent job making their presence known without interfering or infringing the free speech rights of everyone. Truth be told, I think both sides had some chants and actions that were bad looks. Protests are a blunt instrument, and when you remove nuance, you give way to stereotypes to take hold. You could see the protesters demonize the supporters as religious heretics that were enabling child endangerment, while the supporters generalized the protesters as religious nuts and Alt-Right hate groups.

I didn’t take part in any of the chants and mainly stood silently unless someone directly yelled at me about my sign, at which point I would engage back with them. One of the protesters that engaged with me finally said he couldn’t disagree with my points, so that was kinda cool. At the end of the event when the supporters disbanded, I walked back to my car past the police chief who shook my hand, then by a few of the “Don’t tread on me” protesters. I told them to have a good day and they said: “you too”.

In the end, I think this was a worthwhile event for our community. Diverse programming was offered at the library unimpeded, and there was a lively conversation about culture, morals, and freedom outside of the library. I realize that people may feel uncomfortable about social disruption, but protests (and counter protests) and demonstration are integral parts of our American heritage. Just because conversations don’t happen in the public square doesn’t mean that they’re not taking place, these events just enable communities to bring these views into the light for all to see.

Keep Liberty In Our Library: An Open Letter to Mayor Melendez of Windsor

Keep Liberty In Our Library: An Open Letter to Mayor Melendez of Windsor

Jeromey Balderrama

Dear Mayor Melendez,

I am writing to express my concern regarding efforts to restrict the freedom of your residents that wish to participate in programming at the Clearview Library. After watching events unfold over the last month, it appears that you and some local officials are attempting to ram through a particular point of view over the civil liberties of our neighbors.

Freedom and liberty are the bedrocks of our society. As elected officials, you have a duty to protect all viewpoints, even those that may make some feel uncomfortable. While I may personally have no interest in attending the Drag Queen Story Hour, I also recognize that the Clearview Library District is chartered with offering diverse programming to all parts of our community, and understand that not all library services and events must appeal to a majority of residents. With a Facebook Event RSVP that exceeds the capacity of the library’s large meeting room, a significant level of interest has been met to justify this programming. If no laws are being broken, and no hate is being advocated, then it is up to you as an elected official to protect its freedom and respect its right to seek programming and resources.

Suppose the library heeds your mayoral advice and cancels the event: should they then proceed to ban all programming that is mildly controversial? Shall we strip the library of all books and movies that may contain people dressed outside of their biological gender?  If a biological man walked into the library wearing a dress, should he be barred from entering? Do we hold the same standard against women wearing outfits that challenges the Town Board’s definition of “modesty”? Shall the library also ban resources that do not conform to the moral view of current town leadership? Should the library require approval from town and school boards before community groups/and or political clubs can gather?  Is there a similar policy in place for our Rec Center and parks? By publicly placing your elected thumb on the scale, you are creating a slippery slope on the path towards repression and government censorship, resulting in potentially costly legal challenges for our town.

As the father of two young girls, I can sympathize with parents that object on the grounds of avoiding exposure to their children.  However, the consequence of participating in a free society is that our kids will likely encounter people and ideas that are in conflict with their parents’ world-view.  Just last month I took my 5-year-old to an Eagles game and had to spend the first period explaining what “sucks” means and why the crowd was chanting those words.  The reality is that parents are challenged with turning those occurrences into teachable moments. We must also respect those parents that see this event as an opportunity to further their child’s exposure to the gender identity conversation. Of course, to parents that wish to limit exposure, there remains the obvious remedy: do not attend. It is not the role of government to shield the community from objectionable viewpoints, especially when suppressing the rights of others.

I challenge you and our leaders to do what’s right, rather than simply pleasing the population of those aligned with your ideals. Please do not abuse your stewardship by seizing the power of society and administering a top-down implementation of your morality, especially at the expense of law-abiding groups in our community. These actions are far more damaging to our communal fabric than any single library event.

Sincerely,

Jeromey Balderrama