About 15 library patrons attended the regular board meeting on January 11, 2005. They heard that the library board was ready to vote on whether to keep or ban the controversial “Happiness” video from the library premises.

All board members were present except board President Don McCurry.

The board decided to keep it on the library shelf with one major reservation. The vote was 4-2 with Linda Geng and Sandra Alldredge voting against the motion. Geng challenged the video just before she was appointed to her trustee position in July 2004.

From now on anyone who wants to borrow that movie from the library will need to be over age 18. All other movies remain without restrictions.

This was the compromise made after a two-hour discussion with the patrons and amongst the board members themselves. At times the conversation became heated but overall points were scored on both sides, from those who wanted to ban and those who opposed the ban.

Four members of the audience including Yvonne Cryns of Richmond, Jay Marshall of Spring Grove, Sue Rekenthaler of Richmond and Michael Nickels-Wisdom of Spring Grove, spoke against banning the video. Nickels-Wisdom said in a letter to the board asking to keep the video on the shelf said, “The film was purposely ironic in an attempt to most forcefully impress on viewers the characters’ pain and to bring viewers to a deeper understanding of what it means to be human.”

Rekenthaler said, “I was very proud of the board for its decision. I think it was a good compromise and this will be good for the community. I think they listened to what the community was saying.”

Only three trustees actually viewed the movie. One of those, Bob Johnston called the movie "very sad.”

Arlene Sawicki from Citizens for Community Values sent a letter to the board that was read at the meeting by Director Kathryn Hausman. Sawicki warned the board that the whole process is being “watched.” Her letter said, “The proceedings of the Nippersink Library Board in this matter is being watched by our organization as well as the Illinois Family Institute and the National Law Center for Children and Families.”

According to its website, Citizens for Community Values is a Christian organization “to promote Judeo-Christian moral values, and to reduce destructive behaviors contrary to those values, through education, active community partnership, and individual empowerment at the local, state and national levels.”  The Illinois Family Institute is an organization “Promoting the pro-family agenda in local councils, school boards, the media and Illinois General Assembly.”  The National Law Center for Children and Families claims to be “a specialized resource to those who enforce state and federal obscenity and child exploitation laws, to counsel federal, state, and local legislators on the constitutionality and effectiveness of amendments to existing criminal and civil codes; and to provide a training and information clearinghouse on the specialized issues involved in illegal pornography and First Amendment related cases.

A trustee who watched the video noted that there were no graphic sexual depictions in the movie and this observation was seconded by a few people in the audience who also watched the movie.

After the meeting Hausman said, “It was a compromise and I think we had to reach a compromise on the issue. I think the community will be comfortable with the outcome.”

In other business trustee Alldredge would like to remove the American Library Association (ALA) intellectual freedom statements including the Library Bill of Rights and the Freedom To Read statement and the trustee ethics statement from the library policy manual. Alldredge claimed that these materials should be put in another place and should not be emphasized as an important guide for the library.

Hausman responded, ‘The ALA is a consensus of pro librarians who have spent many years developing these policies. It would be embarrassing for our library district to eliminate the ALA nationally accepted guidelines from our policy manual. To make such a philosophical change does not seem to me to be prudent at a time when there will be a new board.”