Citizens and commissioners clash over library governance and police presence at recent meetings
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
During the county’s public comment period residents criticized a local library board’s handling of records and described an incident that brought multiple police officers to a library meeting; commissioners and speakers debated whether police presence was necessary.
Multiple residents used the county’s Aug. 14 second public comment period to criticize actions by members of the Lapeer District Library board, defend public access to documents and question why police officers were summoned to recent library meetings.
A resident speaking during the comment period said the library board had improperly sought to suppress two documents that a community group had obtained through legal, public means and argued the documents contained no sensitive employee evaluations or pending litigation; the speaker said the Library Privacy Act does not prevent disclosure of patrons’ names when they are attached to Freedom of Information Act requests.
A separate resident described a prior library meeting where the county’s court-security or law-enforcement presence increased rapidly after a county official made a call; the speaker said officers were on scene within three minutes and said the call bypassed dispatch. The speaker said the attendees were not violent but that the police response made constituents feel treated as potential threats.
Other speakers said they had witnessed heated exchanges at library meetings and expressed no objection to police presence when safety could be a concern. Commissioners said no member of the county commission requested officers at the library meeting and that the county chair personally saw no need for a heavy police presence at that event; he said he would not second-guess law enforcement’s operational judgment.
Speakers also urged transparency in library governance and questioned redaction decisions; commissioners and members of the public urged civility and adherence to open-meeting and FOIA obligations while recognizing strong differences of opinion among community members.