In an effort to learn more about the candidates for the positions of trustees at the Great Neck Library, the Great Neck Record will pose one or two questions to each candidate each week up until the election on Oct. 30. This week our question was: "Imagine that you were already serving as a member of the library board at last night's meeting (Sept. 19) and addressing any one topic that came up, what would you have done differently? What impact would you have tried to make on the proceedings? Be specific about how you would have tried to accomplish that."

Andrew Greene and Jonathan Kahn are vying for one seat. Janet Eshaghoff and Robert Spitalnick are vying for the second seat.

As one who intends to serve on the library board, I am loath to criticize its trustees --- volunteers committed to serve in their own inimitable way. Still, their last public meeting will haunt me indefinitely: It was that tragic.

Having sat on multiple boards, I know that showing simple respect for my peers and being sufficiently prepared are fundamental requirements for being an upstanding member of a complex organization. In that regard, library trustees are offered an annual tutorial on parliamentary procedure, yet certain board members acknowledged that they hadn't attended. Others did attend, but still had no inkling of parliamentary proceedings. Removing items from the agenda without notice, being unable to ascertain whose motion had carried last meeting, and not knowing how to dispose of a new motion to rescind an old resolution are but a few choice examples of that late night's transgressions. Some trustees actually became defensive and condescending when questioned by patrons and employees in attendance.

I observed the board's infamous irrationality, live, that night! Why table a decision on the broken air conditioner compressor --- during the heat of the summer? Why the inaction on hiring new maintenance personnel, now down to a skeleton crew servicing several branches? (Indeed, several staff members stayed late to hear about that. Hours into the evening, the public was unceremoniously informed that that topic had been inexplicably removed from the agenda). Why would they do that? How do they get away with that?

The enigma of why the trustees are weakening the library is only exacerbated by their appropriation of the library director's authority to manage those very issues. As a team-oriented trustee, I would never have voted to defy her --- she is uniquely qualified to perform her duties. I believe the board's actions as to Ms. Nevens were inexcusable, notwithstanding a naive attempt by one trustee to undo the prior resolution that undermined her. (You cannot "unring" that bell.) Farcically, we witnessed as she composed her own epitaph, in search of a new hire that would replace the irreplaceable her. Note to board: Look right in front of you! With a director that is soon leaving, and a board guilty of infighting and malfeasance, the library is in dire need of independent voices for positive change. I pledge to be such a voice.

Thank you for allowing me to comment on the Sept. 19 library board meeting. I attended this board meeting and was distressed to see that the library board seems to be in a state of "meltdown" which is preventing it from doing the important work of serving the community.

As an example of the dysfunctional behavior of the board, at the Sept. 19 meeting a trustee moved for the board to reconsider its prior resolution stripping the director of her authority to hire library personnel. The board's action to substitute itself for the library director in relation to library personnel is widely perceived as a reason for Arlene Nevens' departure. Instead of discussing this important issue in a respectful, constructive manner, the board meeting of Sept. 19 became a maelstrom in which individual board members accused each other of improprieties and misunderstandings in relation to this vital issue. Nothing constructive was accomplished. I support the prompt reversal of the board's ill-advised resolution relating to hiring practices.

If I were a member of the library board at last night's meeting, I would have ensured the presence of a parliamentarian to rule on the board members' procedural disagreements. This would have guaranteed that specious, procedural obstacles could not be utilized to thwart the will of the community in reversing the board's disastrous missteps. In addition, I would have ensured that a substantive motion, such as that introduced to restore the integrity of the library director with respect to hiring, be included in the agenda upon adequate notice to the community and other board members. This would have nullified any potential objection raised from board members to avoid consideration of the motion for purely procedural reasons.

It is obvious from the board's missteps that it cannot or will not competently manage the library or effectively hire a new director without changes in the composition of the board. I am running as an independent candidate for library trustee to change the existing toxic chemistry on the board. I believe that the very existence of the library system as we know it is at stake in this election. The community is faced with a choice: the continuation of the destructive status quo; or turning a corner with new leadership to invigorate and strengthen the library.

As the library nominated candidate for trustee, I have regularly attended scheduled board meetings and subcommittee meetings.

Attendance has provided me with the opportunity to regularly read, analyze and become familiar with the monthly statements and other documents provided to the public at each board meeting. It has also provided me with a comparative perspective to judge the relative productivity of each board meeting. What I have concluded is that board meetings rarely address or act upon any substantive library 'topics'.

The Sept. 19 meeting was business, or rather no substantive business, as usual. In this context, the closest I can come to any one topic I would have handled differently was perhaps the argument over Roberts Rules of Order, a meandering debate that likely lasted longer than Roberts took writing his rules in the first place.

My impact on the proceedings would have been to end discussion by making a motion that all questions concerning parliamentary procedures and bylaw interpretations be referred in writing to outside counsel retained by the library.

Addressing the most important 'topic' facing the library --- capital improvements to the main branch --- requires a board that will reassert its traditional role of leadership, rather than meander in its present role of debating society.

As a trustee, I will be an advocate to re-engage the community the process. I will promptly call for scheduling town hall-style meetings to determine what forms of content and programs and types of hardware the community and our library staff would like to see incorporated into an updated library, without losing sight of the fact that we live in a rapidly evolving technological environment.

I will urge that their recommendations be collated and organized into a working document for presentation to and further discussion with a reconstituted building committee, reporting back to the board for further action under a well-defined timetable.

The community will be better served by a board engaged in discussing how to recreate what seems to be a lost sense of purpose, excitement and buzz in and about our library.

After years of infighting, the library board is becoming dysfunctional and risks losing the public's confidence. The meeting of Sept. 19 is a perfect example. One board member moved to reverse the board's previous decision to take a more intensive role in the hiring of supervisory staff. Such a controversial issue should not have been brought up at a public meeting without the other board members being informed and having an opportunity to negotiate a resolution. The board sank into an open debate on a point of order, with the same board member challenging the chair's authority.

As an attorney and mediator, my approach is to maintain an atmosphere of fairness, while seeking out common ground leading to solutions based upon mutual interests. Had I been on the board, I would have asked the chair to call a brief recess to hash out any differences. If such a caucus failed to reach an agreement, I would have moved to table the vote until the next meeting. The chair should not take this action without a vote.

In order to create such an atmosphere and restore public confidence, I believe this board should immediately adopt the following policies:

The board should have its attorney present at all meetings, to see that the rules of order are followed at all times, and that all motions are lawful and not in conflict with the library's bylaws or contractual obligations.

Motions should be made in writing and circulated to board members at least one week before each meeting. Only in exceptional circumstances should the board become embroiled in nitpicking arguments about semantics or procedural points.

The rule that members of the public may only address the board on a particular item after all members of the board have been heard should be strictly enforced. Comments must be addressed to the chair, and debate must never become personal. Proper decorum requires that once the chair rules on a procedural issue, members of the board refrain from criticizing the decision publicly.

My suggestions are not intended to imply that spirited debate is to be avoided. Rather, I believe that when a board functions properly in an atmosphere of mutual respect and decorum, debate can reach the highest level. This is the best way for our board to get back to business and bring about positive change for the Great Neck Library.