Greetings:

As most in our community know, the welcoming policies, mission, and environment of the Cortland Free Library have – over this winter — made us an important option for members of our community experiencing homelessness, as well as others who are no doubt struggling with unemployment, chemical dependency, mental health issues, or some combination of these.

Compounded by the lack of a day-time warming shelter – and, if we’re honest, also exacerbated by less-than-ideal behavior from a minority of these patrons which, in turn, has resulted in an increase in calls for support from the Cortland Police Department* – the situation has resulted in highly emotional and charged debate and discourse in our community, in the Cortland Standard, and on social media.

Some in this debate have shown real support, sympathy, and understanding for the library’s position; others have mainly voiced concern and frustration, choosing to curtail their visits or migrate to other libraries; and still others in our community have responded with commentary or actions that have proved to be unconstructive, hurtful, and even threatening.

Significantly and relatedly, our director, Jen Graney, recently submitted her resignation to the Board. (I will not endeavor to speak on Jen’s behalf: Rather, please do take a moment to read her explanation and summary of accomplishments during her tenure here.)

Where do we go from here?

As I indicated in my comments in the March 5th Common Council Meeting, the Board of Trustees has formed an ad hoc committee/working group to address the aforementioned issues and endeavor to correct course: I volunteered to Chair that committee, which is comprised of select Trustees and a handful of community members – all of whom have been invited to join because of their passion, unique perspectives, specific experiences with the matters at hand, and commitment to helping the library. We’re meeting weekly – three times, thus far – and will soon make some initial recommendations to the full Board of Trustees. Importantly, we’ll also garner input from our exceptional and incredibly dedicated staff.

Our focus?

First and foremost, the mission of this working group will be to adjust levers of control directly available to us within the library, including but not limited to revisiting our policies, approach to enforcement, and ways we might assist at-risk populations while remaining true to the library’s mission.

But I will also tell you that the second focus of this group – and one that Director Graney herself initiated and has been pursuing over the last year – will be to act as a catalyst to external factors and action.

As part of this latter goal, we will be counting on the City of Cortland and Cortland County to do more and better to mitigate some of the causes and issues faced by our community’s vulnerable populations. (Indeed, we’ve already had some very positive and frank dialogue with our municipal allies, who are well-aware of the circumstances that have led us here.) We’ve also been in touch with our State representatives, opening those channels of communication should specific actions or support be needed from that quadrant). And, continuing Direct Graney’s work, we will continue to engage and collaborate with the network of social service agencies already doing excellent work in our community.

For the moment, thank you for listening… For your patience and forbearance as we navigate these waters… And for your continuing support in the weeks, months, and years ahead.

You will be hearing from our working group soon – including occasional updates on our plans and tangible progress in ensuring the library remains a pleasant, enjoyable, and safe place for all.

JH

* It should be noted that the “300% increase in calls” for city police support at the library this last year that has been referenced by numerous sources appears (upon further investigation) to lack important context: Many of the calls included in the CPD report were not initiated by library staff (aka: the library’s catalog of police-involved incident reports is lower than the raw CPD data suggests); rather, many were made by concerned residents (still not ideal, mind you) while still others were made by two individual patrons who were, in essence, feuding and calling the CPD on one another.