It seems a glaring oversight to suggest the “let’s try it” approach to removing all print daily newspapers/relying exclusively on e-subscriptions without defining: *How assessment will be made to determine the failure or success of the “let’s try it” approach

Does that seem like responsible stewardship to you?

It doesn’t to me.

Love the beekeeping program on the green roof, but it is not the central function and responsibility of public libraries to fund staff training to help the beekeeper, plus any other costs involved with the beekeeping program.

It is an extra, optional.

In the OPPL’s Library Strategic Priorities Report Stewardship Objective #2: “We provide broad, effective and equitable access to resources,” it seems removing print daily newspapers’ access to older adults, to more modest income residents, and, yes, to the homeless = failure to follow the objective.

Finally, as to cost of the print daily newspaper subscriptions, it was quite surprising to hear that costing was referenced for all three branches, when that has not been requested.

If the implication is that all services and technology at the Main are now going to be extended to Maze and Dole, bring the cellphone rechargers to the branches!

Not addressed is the question asked of board trustees in an email, about documented eye strain, a growing issue among adults and children, by extensive reading on screens of all sizes.

*Was that medical reality taken into account when senior staff recommended e-subscriptions only?

Is there an ADA consideration of OPPL adding to that documented health problem?

Please answer these questions.

Peggy Conlon-Madigan
Oak Park

Join the discussion on social media!