What Is Going On at Oak Park Public Library?

Since January, a misinformation campaign has led to the firing of a beloved executive director, an unhappy staff, and more

Oak Park Public Library (OPPL) is one of the most innovative and respected public libraries in the Chicago area, if not the midwest or country more broadly. The library earned a 5-star status from Library Journal in December 2022, among dozens of other awards.

This weekend, the Oak Park Public Library Board of Directors fired its executive director, Joslyn Bowling Dixon. Bowling Dixson began at the library in November 2022 and was its first Black female executive director. She came under fire in recent weeks and she was ousted by the Board in a near-unanimous vote which took place in the fourth special meeting held by the board in the last two weeks.

Part I: What Led To Firing The Executive Director

Bowling Dixon came under fire following an event being hosted by the library in January. The event, organized and hosted by a group unaffiliated with the library, reserved a meeting room for it. The details and coordination were facilitated through a staff member at the library who, at the time, was out on medical leave. Here’s the information for the event, which is still available on the OPPL public calendar of events.

The event, hosted by Oak Park Neighbors for Justice and Peace in Palestine and Israel and the Oak Park and River Forest High School Middle Eastern/North African Student Alliance, was successful, drawing in several hundred attendees.

The problem, however, lies in the way the library is noted here for the event. It’s not a library-led event. It’s an event led by another group but being held at the library (similar to the See You At the Library events held at public libraries nationwide by Brave Books last summer). Perusing the OPPL calendar shows that there are dozens of such events held every month that carry this note. It’s likely policy and is frequently done in libraries across the country–it’s to make clear that the library is providing the space but not coordinate the event itself. This is so that if something were to happen, the library doesn’t take the heat. Again, compare it to the Brave Books story times, which were deliberately held at public libraries to create this very confusion. That note, “This is not a library-led event” serves to protect the library.

Designating an event as not library led for OPPL also means that staff time and promotion will not be put toward it the same way it would be for a library-led event. That is, it’s on the calendar and likely has publicity in designated areas in the library, but the library itself will not post about it on social media, in local media, and so forth.

What is interesting in the above, though, is that beneath “Organization Info” is the library. That is indeed confusing: is this a library event or is it not a library event? Remember this question since we’ll be revisiting it.

Above is another example of the way the library distinguishes between events that are library-led events and those which are not.

Confusion about the library’s role in the Palestinian event are where much of the story rests. Compounding the issue is the fact that the only public communications about the confusion about said event come from a single news source, the local Wednesday Journal (WJ).

And that paper has been doing a strong job of only making the confusion worse.

In the first story to address the event, the reporter noted that Bowling Dixon and other leadership elected to label the event as a community event, rather than one sponsored by the library. As proof of the library’s slick change, the journal shares the planning email sent by the staff liaison to the event.

The problem? The email actually states that it is a community event and not a library event.

Right there in the email, the staff member states “It is not a library event.” It is not a library event. Since it’s not a library event, there is no responsibility for the library to do more than provide the space. The staff liaison here has elected to offer some resources, which is within her purview. But that’s about it.

Despite the event being a success–and the library and board acknowledge that it was!–it brought about complaints for the way it was handled internally. Again, it was Wednesday Journal which offered a few details about the criticism in the handling of the event, but this time the blame on the confusion about whether the event was a library-led event or a community event went to whoever was covering for the staff member out on leave. Again, the above email clearly states more than a month prior to the event that it is not a library-led event.

Following the event, two staff positions in the library were eliminated. Those positions were cut due to the budget: Oak Park Public Library has been drawing down its reserves for years, primarily with staff wages, and all of that information is in the board minutes (compare 2022 to 2023). One of the worst tasks in the hands of an executive director of a library is to figure out what to do when this happens. Do you continue to draw from your reserves and hope the ship rights? Do you make some hard calls in order to keep it floating?

If OPPL kept drawing down the reserves at the rate they were, they would have no reserves in 2025. A library without reserves is a library that will be eliminating many more positions very soon. As with most organizations, personnel costs are the bulk of the budget.*

The individuals in both positions were not immediately let go. Instead, they were offered lateral moves within the organization; in other words, their current job titles and duties were “nice to haves”/”what we want when we can have it” in the library with the budget issues (i.e., when the money is there, they are exactly what you’d want to have but when the money is not there, you have to shave off those nice-to-haves). But because those employees themselves were valued in the workplace, they were offered roles deemed to be more vital for continued operation and sustained service levels. They could and would be invited to continue advocating for anti-racism and equity in the library as they always had. It would just not be the bulk of their job.

There are not yet minutes posted from the February library board meeting to dig into, which means that seeing the discussion around these decisions is only possible by going through the recorded meeting itself (and those recordings do not include the actual financial documents and other essential board packet material that justify such decisions–indeed, as we will see, the board’s own documentation updates on its page are a mess, as the link to “Approved Minutes (.pdf)” under February 27, 2024, are a link to a lengthy letter from an individual who had concerns over the Palestinian event. It’s worth a read, too: the letter actually makes it more confusing as to why anyone was under the belief it was a library-led event, especially given the email above.

At the February board meeting, the board heard from dozens of people who were frustrated by the handling of the Palestinian event. Recall that it was a successful event, but the problem was in the designation of whether it was a library-led event or not. Among those in attendance at the meeting were members of Activate Oak Park, who had put out a call to their membership to attend the board meeting and speak up about the handling of the event the day before.

The next day, a post from the Oak Park Public Library went live on the library’s Facebook page in response–that post was deleted, but Wednesday Journal has it to look at. Something else mentioned in the WJ article is that staff were told they could not speak about the incident to the press. Again: this is common practice in any institution to have a media policy. There are people whose job is to do this, and more, having an employee speak on behalf of the library makes the entire library look bad, whether they’re talking about something positive or something negative. In the case of this incident, at least one staff member and staff member impacted by the position elimination elected to do so anyway.

The board meeting led to a statement by the board in response to the attendees who spoke about the problems with the event’s categorization. Among the common themes in the public comments were about staff morale at the library. To address this, the board put in their statement that they would be working to implement an anonymous staff feedback form. This would help them to think through what their next steps in the process might be. From the statement:

It is important that we proceed with thoughtfulness and intention so that we can be confident that the steps we take next are in service of true and meaningful change. We also appreciate that, at the same time, there is an urgent and growing concern about Oak Park Public Library’s ability to maintain the standards of excellence, openness, and equity that it is known for. We are trying to balance both this deliberativeness and urgency as we determine the best ways to move forward.

This was February 28. The board then scheduled a special meeting for March 7.

Before that next board meeting, Bowling Dixon penned a letter to the library community. In it, she takes accountability for the confusion caused by whether or not the event was library-led or a community event and she states she will do better. She also points to two events about Ramadan, both of which were library-led events, and notes that more cultural collaborative events were in the works.

That letter, dated March 4, came the same day the library set up a Fact Check page on their website. That fact check page included information about the jobs that were eliminated, information about the employee satisfaction within the library, and more. Many of the statements here fact check the news reported in the WJ–again, it is worth emphasizing that the WJ was the only place where information about this situation was happening on any community-wide scale.

The agenda for the March 7 special meeting of the board was figuring out how to conduct an anonymous staff survey to address internal concerns about leadership. The board planned to work with a team from Yardstick Management.

Then came a letter from Activate Oak Park. The letter, signed by a little over 100 people and dated March 10, listed a series of demands from the group to the board. Among them are claims that the position eliminations were done as threats, that staff members felt disrespect, fear, and distrust in the library, that the Palestinian event was poorly managed, and that it was inappropriate to use public funds and the OPPL public website to promote personal and political opinions falsely represented as “facts” at “FactChecker.” (This last one begs the question of where and how WJ’s reporting of “facts” were not personal or political opinions, too, but alas).

Another special meeting was called. This time for Thursday, March 14. This time, far more people knew what was happening than just one week earlier. The agenda once again listed “Staff Survey” as its item to be covered.

Unfortunately, Bowling Dixon had already been asked by the board at this point to resign her position. This happened via Zoom earlier in the day on the 14, when she received her evaluation from the board (hours in advance of the special meeting for that evening). She would not resign. Neither the public nor staff knew about this surprise evaluation, though, nor would they know Bowling Dixon was asked to resign. Instead, they would learn of the decision at the next special meeting, to be held Saturday, March 16, at 3 pm.

Saturday’s special meeting was posted immediately after Bowling Dixon refused to resign her position. Bowling Dixon had to post that meeting notice herself, knowing full well it was likely the meeting the board would chose to fire her.

This was the first time staff were hearing about the potential firing of their executive director.

If you’re wondering about the staff survey, that wasn’t implemented prior to the firing. Even though it was supposed to be a priority, per the board president.

Dozens of people showed up to the Thursday meeting. Most spoke on behalf of the library, including several staff members and staff members who represented entire departments within the library. They praised the work Bowling Dixon had done and the ways in which the environment in the library became stronger and more committed under her leadership. Among the speakers were other library leaders from the area, including Kate Hall, Executive Director at the Northbook Public Library.

But if you read the recap of this particular meeting from the WJ, you wouldn’t know that. You’d know this instead:

She’s just some woman “who said she works at Northbrook Public Library.” This is a renowned executive director of a library who published a book on library leadership. The WJ “reporter” doesn’t bother to do the basics of research. Research that she had no problem doing, since she was at the virtual meeting on Thursday night and Kate introduced herself by name and title.

The WJ also included this.

The unnamed commenter and Oak Park resident was Mary Davis Fournier, Executive Director of the Public Library Association.

No decisions were made at the March 14 meeting. The board instead allowed for over an hour of public comment, followed by a short discussion of contacting Yardstick to begin the staff survey process. Note that during this discussion, they talked about having a meeting with their contact at Yardstick the following day, Friday, March 15, which would have been in violation of the Open Meetings Act.

Part II: The Board Publicly Violates the Open Meetings Act

The meeting on March 16 showed a packed room, and the Zoom stream had at times between 70 and 95 attendees.

Per the Open Meetings Act, all board documents need to be available to the public 48 hours prior to the meeting. This is the case in special meetings, too. The agenda for the Saturday meeting was posted with plenty of time to be in compliance.

At least they did.

Somewhere between the hours of 11:30 am and 2:30 pm on Friday, March 15, the agenda changed. Below is the original agenda, acquired via the Wayback Machine.

And here’s what the agenda changed to look like between those hours on Friday:

The public comments were pushed to after the decision on whether or not to fire Bowling Dixon. Though she had yet to be fired by the board, the demands for her resignation made it clear to the executive director that would be the most likely outcome at the meeting. Attendees, however, did not know this.

Per the Open Meetings Act, though, this agenda change may be a violation of the rights of the public, as the new agenda was not posted for 48 hours prior to the meeting.

Check out the name of the file, too: https://www.oppl.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/MARCH-16-OAK-PARK-PUBLIC-LIBRARY-SPECIAL-BOARD-MEETING-AGENDA-UPDATED.wpdf_-1.pdf.

They knew what they were doing.

But then the board was contacted about this change in agenda and the possibility of being out of compliance with the Open Meetings Act. The agenda around 2:30 pm was suddenly no longer on the website at all.

Shortly after, another new agenda appeared. This time, it was the original agenda order–public comment, then firing–and once again, they couldn’t even get it right with their naming conventions.

“Original,” right there in the name of the file.

By all appearances, the once-replaced-but-now-original-again agenda would be the procedure for the meeting. But as soon as the meeting adjourned, Board President Matt Fruth called for a vote of the board to change the agenda order. They agreed to move the firing of Bowling Dixon before the public comment, rendering nearly every comment from the public pointless–they were making a decision and sticking to it before hearing what their community wanted.

Before implementing the so-called survey they emphasized was needed.

If anyone should have known better, it should be Fruth. Fruth isn’t just president of the board. He’s also Assistant Deputy Clerk Of Elections at Office of the Cook County Clerk.

Prior to the vote, one trustee, Theodore Foss, suggested that instead of terminating Bowling Dixon, the board should put her on administrative leave pending the survey they wanted to do of staff. This was not seconded by anyone on the board. Instead, Kristina Rogers proposed terminating Bowling Dixon and six out of seven board members agreed.

Foss was the only dissent. He would later call for reconsideration of the vote, but per Robert’s Rules, only the person who made the initial motion–Rogers–could call for reconsideration. She did not.

But only a few days earlier, it was Rogers quoted by the WJ as stating that she was in support of a survey and hoped it would not lead to staff targeting.

I encourage you at this point to watch this board meeting. All two+ hours of it. Bowling Dixon speaks, but so do dozens of community members who’ve just seen their board destroy the leadership of their library over what amounts to miscommunication. What amounts to acquiring “facts” from a local newspaper whose interests are not in understanding the library or what it does. That doesn’t want to hold the board accountable for implementing the survey that they repeatedly stated they would implement.

Here’s the statement posted by the Board of Trustees about their decision.

Interlude

Bowling Dixon’s one year anniversary as executive director was November 6 ,2023. In her time she received no 30 day, 6 month, or 1 year written or verbal evaluations. She received no scheduled one on one or weekly/monthly/bimonthly check ins with the board. By January 2024, she’d received no annual evaluation from the board, which also meant no raise and no cost of living adjustment. Instead, the board told Bowling Dixon that they would create a different type of evaluation for her, different from that which the previous two directors were assessed. That shows up in board minutes and agendas in January.

The February 27, 2024, meeting was meant to be an opportunity for the OPPL Leadership Team to share the new format for monthly reports conceived by Bowling Dixon. The format showed how every team in the library was working toward and meeting strategic goals.

A week before that meeting, however, Bowling Dixon was informed that the board would be completing her evaluation on the 27, meaning that presentation would be scraped. The board meeting would only include roll call, public comment, then a closed session to evaluate her performance.

Why did this happen so quickly after the evaluation had already been four months overdue? And why right before Bowling Dixon was about to show off one of the projects she’d worked on to help the board understand how much progress was being made toward the library’s goals?

Given that only special meetings of the board happened between the January meeting and the decision to torpedo the agenda for February in favor of the executive director’s evaluation, Bowling Dixon not only never got the opportunity to speak for herself or her work, but her evaluation and perception was, without doubt, impacted by recency bias.

She never got to address those, of course. She was fired just days later.

Part III: So Now What?

There is no longer an OPPL Executive Director.

But there is a board who has not upheld their duty to their community. Who not only broke Open Meetings Act laws, but who had made a decision days prior and wanted to do that before listening to the community. Before understanding the whys and hows of library policies and procedures.

Was there hurt with the group from Freedom to Thrive? Absolutely. But those were addressed by Bowling Dixon, who was not the person at fault for the miscommunication. Indeed, even the acquired email that WJ uses to prove that the library withdrew support of the event as library-sponsored clearly states that it was not a library-led event.

The event was successful!

What the hell is actually going on is going to take a long time to answer. But this isn’t a functional board, and now, they’ve created discord and chaos in the library they’re tasked to help govern. Why would anyone want to step into the role now left empty by Bowling Dixon? Why would any person of color want to do that especially?

One thing is certain: that staff survey is going to look a hell of a lot different now.

A second thing is certain: the library’s role is to provide information via facts. When your local newspaper doesn’t want to do it, sometimes the role the library has to take is just that.

This week in Alabama, the Autauga Prattville Public Library shuttered its doors in support of the director who was fired by the board for not removing 113 LGBTQ+ books from the collection.

How will the Oak Park Public Library staff–let alone its population of 53,000–respond to the way a director was dismissed over complaints by fewer than .3% of its population?

Time will soon tell.

Notes

*An Older Adults Librarian vacancy occurred in Adult Services, which is part of the Public Services Team, managed by the Deputy Director. The outgoing older adult librarian recommended that her role, as roles in libraries often do, had morphed into two roles: health and wellness/older adults, which would be better served by two separate positions.

The manager in the Adult Services Department, heeding the call to think conservatively about the filling positions relative to the budget and services, thought that leaving the position vacant and transferring two similar positions over from the Community Engagement Team would be an effective way to provide the needed services to patrons and communities, while saving money by leaving the older adults librarian position vacant. The two employees transferring from Community Engagement would continue to do 80 percent of their current position's duties in their new roles, some of which could have included anti-racism and equity work as part of the position, regardless of the new titles. These are not staff who report directly to Bowling Dixon, but rather to the Deputy Director and the Adult Services Manager, however the Bowling Dixon was aware of the transfer idea and in support.

The Community Engagement Team has also been inaccurately described in WJ as part of the Anti-Racism and Equity Team, and its positions as "EDI positions" but it is not. It is currently a team under the Public Services Team umbrella and has been for almost a year

Once a transfer of job is complete, the positions are eliminated; however, the two staff members had the opportunity to accept new lateral positions and remain employed. One employee opted to take the transfer, the other opted to write to the board and plead her case for not being transferred, though the board has only one employee, the ED, and framed the plea in way to inaccurately paint the transfer as in an elimination of EDI positions. She was provided with extra time over the weekend to accept the new positions by close of business on Monday, but instead opted to send a plea to the board again. When the clock run out in extra time, the employee elected not to transfer and lost her current position which no longer existed.

Photo of Oak Park Public Library by bookchen, used under a creative commons license.