The Scouring of the Shire (and Other Cautions)

 For anyone who knows me, you'll know that I'm a tremendous Lord of the Rings nerd. Not only have I done the obvious - yearly re-watches of the films (extended editions, of course), reading the books, watching the Rings of Power - I've also done some of the more esoteric things. Learned Elvish, bought the replica of Anduril, the Flame of the West (Aragorn's sword, folks; keep up!), and even hang a flag of Gondor outside of my house. That part actually has a story which I'll digress a little to tell. A few years ago, I noticed that a neighbour up the street had put up a flag of Rohan. So obviously I had to respond in kind! I kept saying that one day I would light a lamp at the front of my house and see if they stopped by to offer help. Alas, to this day, I have seen no sign of Theoden, king. I must sit alone with my tomatoes (a deep cut - I'm nowhere near as bad as Denethor). 

Anyway...

What I wanted to talk about today is the little known last chapter of the Lord of the Rings books. If you've only watched the Jackson movies, then you're likely *completely* unfamiliar with this, but I think it has some things to talk about us about today. The last chapter of the book is called "The Scouring of the Shire", and deals with the hobbits return to their idyllic home. You know...the Shire is not unlike Hanover (cue my English teacher modality, introducing an extended metaphor in 3...2...)

 What Sam and Frodo and the rest return to is an aggressive takeover of the Shire that they've not returned to yet because they've been recovering with the Elves. The place is taken over by factories, militaristic, fascistic rule, leaders that are concerned with their own aggrandizement at the expense of freedom and beauty that used to mark the Shire. Were the hobbits like this before? No, of course not! The influence came from somewhere. Where did the influence come from? Well, we follow the money. See, there is this new figure in the shire; a character named "Sharkey" who has been influencing things by paying to spread his new regime of cruelty and lack of compassion. When Sharkey is finally unmasked...it's none other than the fallen wizard, Saruman. The one who had been in league with the worst that the Third Age had to offer was wreaking his revenge for a failure to completely obliterate the freedoms of all in the world, by destroying the freedoms of the hobbits. 

In the end it ends happily, or as happily as it can. Let's say Saruman and his assistant don't make it and leave it there. The Shire goes back to normal, and the things that were built by "Sharkey" are torn down and remade into the good, honest life the hobbits are used to. Sam gets to be mayor! Always knew that young man would do well for himself! 

Why was I thinking about it today? Because we're in the midst of the political season. Today was sign day across the entirety of the town. As I look around, I see signs from people that I know working organically in the town. They're at the meetings, they're at the local establishments. They go to the plays with the kids, they're at the open houses and conferences. You know their faces because they are neighbours. Their houses are...well, like yours. A few loose stair boards, maybe, but they'll get to them (I'm getting to mine tomorrow...). And then you have names that have cropped up without much being done in the town. And the posts are full of names from larger, national agendas that...well, I'll let you make your own judgements. What's worse...that national agenda is responsible for de-funding libraries, cutting education, kidnapping citizens and trafficking them to other countries. It makes me nervous. Makes me feel like a hobbit, wondering who on earth this Sharkey character was. 

In the end though, the hobbits won. And the Shire endured. Long live the Shire, my friends.

From the Desk of a Parliamentarian Wannabe

 I'd like to share a little story. The story mostly revolves around how much of a geek I am, so hopefully if nothing else you can find a little humour in that. Early on in my tenure as an educational union official, I went to the MTA Annual Meeting. If you've never been it's pretty much exactly what you'd expect - tons of union leaders, big names, lots of voting, and parliamentary procedure from dawn to dusk. What interests me at the meeting? Was it the stand out we were joining to support the nearby striking hotel workers? No, but that was great. Was it talking to other union siblings? Nope, though that was great. It was watching the Parliamentarian (it's a real job!) run the meeting. What was in order, what was out of order? How do we resolve this amendment? The part of my brain that likes following rules was going *berserk*. I loved it. I came back, looked up professional organizations, bought my own copy of Robert's (picture incoming!), and started following other parliamentarians and organizations. In short, I'm coming for you someday, Doug (he knows; we joke; it's out of order...see what I did there?).

 Simply put, I love procedure. I think order is so important, especially in a time when chaos and disorder are the watchwords of the day. When a group of people can meet, have a framework for meeting, and follow established procedures for resolving their differences...it's just beautiful. And I mean that. I find elegance in a fully followed agenda, in a chain of amendments. Do I know there are others who would love to just "do things"? Sure. But just "doing things" often ends up with a lack of clarity. 

So, when I watched the most recent video for the meeting for the position I'm running, I was dismayed. Public Comment is a cornerstone of local government, and the letter and the spirit of that I feel was violated. I can't understand why a vote to require unanimity in decisions *did not itself accept unanimity*. It seemed...well, it seemed off to me. It just doesn't seem to make much sense, and I've looked back at the meetings to see if I could follow the thread. As near as I can tell, the idea was that since so many votes are unanimous anyway, we might as well require that that be the metric in the bylaws. My question then would be...why? If you're honoring the way things just happen to occur, why *require* it? Putting aside questions of legality, that just seems like flawed logic.

And, it's not what I'd like to see for the library. Since I'm running for the position, I know I get some leeway to be very aspirational, so...I'll indulge. I'd like to see a library that is welcoming and free to everyone. I'd like to see it expand. I'd like to see services for every cross-section of society, from the Children's Story Time group as they sing the "Hello" song to the visits from folks living up at Cushing Residences. I'd like to see the resources gathered from all sources and poured towards expanding programs and services in the direction that the Library Director thinks best. I'm looking forward to hearing all of the different opportunities we can find for funding, if any have been untapped. I'm excited to give back to a library that has been a center point for my own growing family. I have had to explain to Clare that no, it does not mean that I will "own" the library if I win, so if you hear that from her...please excuse her overzealous marketing. 

If you vote for me, you're voting for someone who is precise, who cares, and who will work towards making our library even better. To paraphrase Austen, I shall be miserable without an excellent library.