Village Attorney Believes Controversial New Library Policy is Good Law; Enforcement Still a Question

Residents at Wendesday night's village council meeting questioned why the village council had no role in the which forces private businesses out of public library spaces for a fee. They also told the council there were considerable legal concerns, but the village attorney said he thinks it's good law.

The library has come under fire in recent weeks after Library Director Nancy Greene said private businesses have been taking the public spaces for profit to the detriment of citizens who use the business as a personal and family resource.

The library's board of trustees responded by agreeing to designate the Private Business Center for private enterprises, which will have a series of fees attached for its use and will be cordoned off to public areas.

Other county library officials have said they worried about the legal ramifications, as identifying someone operating a private business is difficult, even if it's suspected. Teaneck discontinued its program years ago on advice from its lawyer. In spite of an early report in The Record, Greene says tutors are not targeted. She claimed The Record's article was inaccurate, inflammatory and misquoted her.

Council meeting fixture Roger Weigand told the council that he'd been under the impression that because Greene answered to Village Manager Ken Gabbert, the village would have some input on the matter.

Specifically, Weigand said he'd like the council to put a hold on the fees and have the village's primary governing body discuss the matter, and in public. Gabbert said that while Greene does report to him in some capacity, it's not on a "day-to-day basis"; the library answers to its Board of Trustees, an appointed body.

Though the administrative structure of who answers to whom may seem murky, Village Attorney Matt Rogers said the library is within its legal right to rent its space as it sees fit and downplayed concerns of high legal bills.

"I just don't see it," Rogers said of potential lawsuits, adding that the library "is still providing access, so it's not as if it's restricted."

Resident Boyd Loving, however, in closing public comments said he still was not convinced taxpayers wouldn't be on the hook. "As a taxpayer I'm concerned because there could be some legal bills," Loving said.

While Rogers said Wednesday night that the library has the authority to charge rent for its spaces and doesn't know of any legal precedents against the policy, he admitted the the question of enforcement 'is a good one.'

Mayor Keith Killion said the problem is also one of public perception.

"If I were sitting down, is a librarian going to ask me what I'm doing? Sometimes that sparks controversy," he said.

Ultimately, Loving said it may not matter how the council feels about the policy.

"I don't know if you have the juice or not," to make changes if the council felt inclined, he said. "It sounds like you're kind of left out of the loop," adding that it could be similar to the village's relationship with the school board, which due to state law rarely needs village approvals.

Rogers said he believes that if needed, a simple village ordinance could be adopted allowing for the structure of fees.