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.