Below, readers will find in its entirety a press release from Save Our Library, a newly minted nonprofit started to oppose the seizure of County libraries by the City and the hiring of LSSI to run the libraries. Let it be noted by all that SCVTalk worked over the weekend and lunch to bring this news first to our readers! (Sorry about the spacing; this a a cut and paste job after all.)
SANTA CLARITA SUED OVER LIBRARY PRIVATIZATION
Privacy Rights Threatened Suit Alleges
(L.A.S.C. Case No. PC 049312- Chatsworth))
Save Our Library, and three Santa Clarita residents, filed suit
today (10/4) in the Los Angeles County Superior Court to block
the City of Santa Clarita (CA), its General Manager, and its
Deputy General Manager from turning over operation of the Santa
Clarita libraries in Canyon Country, Newhall and Valencia to
Library Systems and Services, LLC (“LSSI US”), a Maryland
corporation with foreign connections.
The suit alleges that putting the libraries in the hands of LSSI
US would violate library patrons’ right of privacy guaranteed by
the California Constitution and would be a clear violation of
California’s Public Records Act (“CPRA”). The CPRA explicitly
declares that patrons’ library records – personal information,
borrowing history, computer searches, etc. – are private and
confidential. The suit claims that turning this information over
to LSSI (or allowing it to collect the information) is illegal
and opens the door to other illegal disclosures of the
information that could facilitate identity theft and unwanted
commercial solicitations targeted by a patron’s borrowing/usage.
Don Ricketts, the Santa Clarita lawyer who filed the suit, stated
that he will seek to depose City Council Member Laurie Enders and
Darren Hernandez, the City’s Deputy City Manager and Director of
Administrative Services, later this month. “They were the
architects of this plan,” Ricketts said. “We need to get the
full story behind this–under oath. It was suddenly sprung on the
public in a very undemocratic way with very little transparency.
Maybe everything was legal and above-board, but the secrecy and
speed sure raise suspicions–especially in light of the fact that
no one other than the City and LSSI are in favor of this. There
were over 50 residents who spoke at the Council meeting–and many,
many more who did not speak–all of whom were opposed to the
takeover. The City’s rash action has already closed down the
Canyon Country library for an indefinite period and will further
delay completion of the new Newhall library.”
Hernandez, along with the City and its General Manager, Kenneth
R. Pulskamp, is a named defendant in the lawsuit. All
defendants have been served with the summons and complaint.
*As of three pm Signal releases their “preview” email with a story about Middle School students pretending to be stockbrokers. SCVTalk still holds exclusive sway over this important story!
**As of 5 pm KHTS releases their e-update for October 4 and provides stories about a community college transfer bill, a Chili Cook Off, and a Fin who heard KHTS in Finland, but SCVTalk still providing the only coverage of the library issue.
Loading ...
I believe the legal terminology for this is “booyah”.
Is “booyah” good or bad? Should I be pleased or insulted?
Mr. Ricketts Esq.
Pleased. Booyah is a decidedly positive term. In this case, the booyee would be Pulskamp et al. and the booyer would be yourself and the patrons of our libraries.
In short, thank you for suing our city. (I’m at least 100% serious).
Cheers,
Dr. Von Monster
Phew!
The city councils actions in regard to the libraries is not the main issue here. They are acting the way they always act. OVOV is next. There is not one vision for our valley, and it would be an awesomely boring place it there where. We need democratic action (like voting). This is just a city council, not the Nazi High Command.
Double booyah for Mr. Ricketts.!!! Finally, FINALLY, someone is hearing the residents. What a brilliant legal move. Sorry Daddy Joe G, this is NOT just a city council–they ARE acting like the Nazi High Command. They’re supposed to serve us, not themselves and their special interests. When you have council chambers packed with people telling you what they want, you don’t just laugh in their face. (Well, OUR city council does, but that’s now what they’re there for). We are still hopeful in getting our libraries back. Come on County, where are you?
N&S:
The County is playing hardball. They stopped the renovation of the Canyon Country library. If the City thinks people will blame the County for that they may convince a few sycophants but not many beyond that.
We’re not sure how people could blame County for stopping work; City threw them out. And now they want County to send their workers back in to–what, work for the City? Work for free? Just one more thing Darren didn’t think of. No wonder he doesn’t live in this City.
And he makes how much?
@Nan&Sam your information is either incomplete or incorrect.
Los Angeles County collects OUR property taxes, Special Library Assessment fees, and local developer fees dedicated for library services, such as completing the Canyon Country Library buildout, and presumably uses those fees to refurbish, stock, and manage our three libraries. The County will continue to collect these fees and taxes and KEEP them to spend supposedly on OUR libraries until June 30, 2011.
For County representatives to imply that they would be spending someone else’s money to finish the Canyon Country Library is an outright lie. Holding OUR MONEY and local library branch hostage is one more reason to form our own MUNICIPAL (not private) Library system.
Whenever COLA is asked to spend our money on us, they claim “budget problems” but WE routinely send them more than THEY spend on our libraries.
COLA’s work stoppage at the Canyon Country Library is petty and vindictive. It is also illegal, as COLA is required to hand over our libraries in good useable condition if/when we decide to separate. A building without flooring and construction debris all over the place is not useable. Shuttering our library plant and leaving it in poor condition to make a point is neither ethical or in compliance with contract terms. And you are worried about LSSI meeting contract terms?
Leaving Canyon Country residents without use of OUR library facility while COLA continues to collect OUR money is unconscionable. Los Angeles County should be ashamed that they are leaving US without a useable library facility for months on end in their irresponsible quest to punish the City (us) for having the gall to leave COLA Library system. Especially since, they have already taken our money and CONTINUE to do so…
I am expecting a return phone call from Tony Bell at Supervisor Antonovich’s office to explain to me on what basis they feel justified leaving Canyon Country residents without a useable library…
The mayor even said I made her laugh. What a mistake!
Hey! Joe! I know who you are now! Nice moniker!
The privacy angle is one I hadn’t heard before but it is a serious matter. Obviously, the City did not consider all the aspects and if they did, then they are lying about the timing of this issue. Bottom line is the Council and the City needs to be brought into check and reminded who they work for. I don’t know if the Library change is good or not, but I don’t like the dirty way it was rammed through.
Kudos Mr. Ricketts.
Like I said elsewhere, it’s like putting Al Capone in prison for incom tax. It gets the job done.
As a private company, LSSI can track the books you check out, sell your info to mailing lists, and…well, just about anything they please. I’m betting the city council’s answer to this is they’ll put something in the contract to stop it. But I don’t buy it, not even if they cross their-hearts-and-hope-to-die.
The privacy issue is just one more thing the city council never considered in their dash for the cash. Even a kindergartener knows to stop and look BOTH ways before crossing a street.
August:
Attorney Ricketts has anticipated this by pleading that LSSI has foreign affiliates that are BEYOND the reach of US courts that could obtain the information and use it for nefarious purposes.
You don’t think council writes or even reads contracts, do you?
Delete “contracts” and you got it.
Ahh! The smell of state court discovery in the wind. Like leaves burning in the fall in the Bay Area. Warm, comforting, stimulating thought.
The beauty of discovery in California: The limitless ability of counsel to ask embarrassing questions because they might, and only might, produce relevant information.
And you can videotape them, too!!!!
Don, what about Riverside County? They’ve had LSSI for 13 years and this has never come up. Is it just that this theory hasn’t been tested, or is it that someone has ruled that the privacy matter actually does pass muster?
I have been unable to find any case on this subject, including one involving the section of California’s Public Records Act that specifically provides that library patron records are confidential and private. Only one other state has a statute as specific as California’s. If anyone out there has any research on the subject I would very much appreciate having it.
If only we could get them some prison time.
No – the best part is that you will be deposing Laurie Enders and Darren Hernandez UNDER OATH. Can’t wait to read their responses to how this all just came about on, was it at the June 15th Council meeting at midnight????
OMG–videotape? Maybe Hernandez and Ender will wear one of those “I love the library” t-shirts (just to show that they love us, they really love us). Will they have to speak without notes? Oh, wait, Hernandez can’t answer questions WITH notes. This is so exciting. Suddenly the skies got a little bluer, colors are brighter!
I can only hope it makes YouTube.
Don, deposing “Laurie Enders” may prove difficult. Perhaps Marsha McLeans can help you find her.
I hope to god there’s only one of each.
Well, boys and girls, this is why some people are against cloning.
Pingback: October 5, 2010 – Daily Brief | SCVTalk.com
Pingback: New Organization in Santa Clarita, CA, Sues To Block LSSI Contract « LJ Insider
I notice that Mr. Ricketts doesn’t bother to cite the laws in California that would prohibit LSSI from managing City run libraries. Several other cities and Riverside County already do this in California. I would suggest that anyone who is really interested in the truth review California Government Code sections 6250-6270, especially 6267. After reading this I would like to know how the library has authorized volunteers. Before naming Mr Ricketts your hero as as Tim Myers, I would suggest that you read the law. Since Tim’s standards are so low, I am going to apply to be his next hero.
Though less than explicit, Mr. Ellis argues that giving the confidential data to LSSI would not violate section 6267 because they would be operating under the City. We argue that whether under City supervision or otherwise, LSSI cannot have access to that data.
Among other things, this is a question of statutory interpretation and the City will, no doubt, make that argument. It is unlikely that there will be a final resolution of that issue for at least a couple of years as the case works its way through the trial and appellate courts. The issue is one of national, constitutional significance that is being discussed well beyond Santa Clarita. The privacy issue aside, the suit raises the more fundamental question of how far local government can go in subcontracting out
public services which it has a duty to provide to private companies not directly answerable to the voters.
The issue of withdrawal from the County Library first arose in 1999 when the City commissioned an independent company to evaluate the same three options which Mr. Hernandez advised the Council it had: Stay put, withdraw and run it, or withdraw and let LSSI run it. That study recommended that it stay put. Nothing close to the type of objective, independent analysis that was done in 1999 was done this time and the financial analysis that was done is shaky. Nor did the City, this time, conduct a survey of what the patrons thought as was done in 1999. Then, like now, the over
whelming majority were satisfied with the present system.
The City has, really, only two options: Stay put or withdraw and run the libraries directly. Neither was seriously considered by the Council or staff. I get a sense that there might not be much opposition to a municipally owned and operated public library, much like the City of Los Angeles, the City of Riverside, and approximately 25 other California cities have done.
Is there any way we can obtain copies of the complaint filed in court?