Lawsuit would deny opportunity to vote

To the Editor:

My library file dates back to 2005. Letters to the editor, as is mine, are combinations of opinions and facts. 

• For approximately 70 years, the City of Dayton operated the Dayton Memorial Library supported by city taxpayers. 

• In 2005 the county voted to form a taxing district to help fund the library to improve services. 

• The city and the county library district made an agreement to mutually operate the library.  The county had the bulk of the cash, and the city retained their building and all the pre-county district materials, furnishing and equipment.  The city had a non-voting representative on the library board to represent the city’s interest.  

• In 2008 the rural library district board of directors approached the city council and proposed that the city join the rural district.    By annexing the city into the rural library district, the city taxpayers would tax themselves the same as the county, but the city would give up all control and would transfer ownership of the building and its contents to the District on Jan 1, 2010. The contract for mutual operation would continue with the city until the District began receiving tax money in 2011.  (Information from “Shall the City of Dayton Annex into the CCRLD” pamphlet dated August 18, 2009.) 

• Before the vote, however, the city (along with the city attorney) wisely developed an agreement with the library District. Condition 2.4 “If the District dissolves pursuant to RCW 27.12.320, the Dayton Memorial Library building and the real property the building is on; the pre-annexation collection, all fixtures, and all equipment that is part of the building, and all future Hedwig Davis, Peabody Endowment, and Delany Trust income would return to the City at no cost, so that the City could resume providing Library Services to the City of Dayton.”

• Some citizens supported joining the rural library district. Other citizens did not support the city giving up control.   

• However, the CCRLD board promoted the efficiency of total control.  In 2009 the city residents voted to tax themselves to purchase library services from the county rural library district and gave up control.  They have been taxing themselves and ‘purchasing services’ since that time. (Current funding is approximately $372,000 from the county taxpayers and $100,000 from city taxpayers.)   

• In the past year and a half, certain books began to appear in the children’s library.  I have seen the books. I have a picture of them shelved along with popular children magazines such as ‘Ranger Rick’ and ‘American Girl’.  These sexually explicit books raised concerns.  Also of concern was the book for the youngest children entitled “Our Skin”.  Our Skin describes the nature and characteristics of people according to their skin color. The book portrays people with white skin in a negative way. Upon hearing the story, a grandma I know told me that her five year old grandson asked her what color was his skin? It is my opinion that children do not even notice skin color. 

• Residents started attending library board meetings complaining about the number and nature of books that were showing up on the children’s level of the library. They asked for change in placement not banning.  Residents learned that board policy allowed them to comment at library board meetings, but they were not allowed to ask questions.  

• In June of this year, frustrated residents signed a petition to dissolve the library TAXING DISTRICT. Enough signatures were gathered to put the proposal on the ballot in November.  

• On August 29, 2023, a lawsuit was filed to prevent the proposal from reaching the ballot. The main concern was that the city residents, by Washington State law, will not be able to vote on the proposal to dissolve the library district.   In my opinion, if the library TAXING DISTRICT were dissolved, the city residents would no longer be able to purchase services, however, they also would no longer be paying taxes for those services.  If you shop at a store and buy items and the store owners decide to close, you have no vote just because you were a customer. Unfortunately, the city gave up total control in 2009.  If the petition is not allowed on the ballot, the county residents will be denied the opportunity to vote on the proposal.

Please be informed,

Marcene Hendrickson

Dayton, Wash.