Below is the conversation, verbatim. I replied with a rebuttal, also in hopes to hear from his colleagues. Please excuses my use of the "royal we" but I did try to clarify when "I" was speaking. Keep in mind Schieber is not running for re-election (according to The Landmark). But his colleagues will be up for election in 2025.

Schieber's reply was dismissive and condescending -- he's made up his mind without a full understanding of the issue and has made it clear he has no interest in listening to the public to reconsider his appointments. Considering the tone of his response, I may have allowed a grain of snark into my reply. I think it's safe to say, if Platte County wants change, it needs to happen at the ballot box.

******

Our Letter:

Dear Dagmar Wood, Joe Vanover, & Ron Schieber:

On behalf of many of your constituents, I am writing to ask for your help. 

Several members on the Mid-Continent Public Library Board of Trustees have unfortunately, and very publicly, espoused pro-censorship and anti-inclusive sentiments antithetical to the purpose of public libraries – and in direct violation of the American Library Association’s Code of Ethics. These public behaviors (well-documented recently by KCUR and previously by The Kansas City Star) make it clear these individuals cannot serve on the Board of Trustees in good faith, let alone make sound decisions with tax-payer resources. 

The public understands your office did not appoint these trustees with bad intentions, nor do they believe you desire their actions to taint your legacy of public service. 

Within a week alone, 650+ people (many residing in your county, and the total number grows daily) have signed a petition asking for the removal of Yummy Pandolfi, Michael Lazio, and Rita Wiese from the MCPL Board of Trustees. We have reached out to Clay County with similar concerns. 

Please, rescind these appointments and help our communities by appointing dedicated public servants who: believe in the essential good libraries provide for our democracy, understand intellectual freedom, and will show reverence and maturity in their responsibilities.  

We eagerly await your reply and hope it will deter our need for next steps involving the ALA and state-level officials. We’re proud of the work you’ve done for our communities and hope you’ll make us proud again. 

Below are the links to the most recent news story, the live petition (which is still growing), helpful links to ALA materials regarding intellectual freedom, and attachments of the names and public comments recorded within the last week. 

We look forward to hearing from you. 

Best regards,

Austin Gragg & the many patrons and supporters of our public libraries

Ron Schieber (presiding commissioner):

Dear Mr.. Gragg,

Thank you for your message. Contrary to what you state in your message, I am directly involved and responsible for the appointment of all of the Platte County Board Members that you are asking us to remove. I find it ironic and quite disturbing that you are interested in an inclusive library system but you want us to remove members of the governing body for expressing their concerns. Removing a person from service who disagrees with your position is not the way to best serve our community or the library constituents. I will oppose any and all attemps by you and your organization to censor our appointments for simply expressing a view contrary to your beliefs.  To be inclusive, constituents who disagree with you have just as much need for a voice on the board and certainly have the right to the same representation on the board.

Certainly, the ALA is an important entity for establishing library guidelines.  But they have no governing authority.  However, if you feel it is beneficial to report your concerns to them, I encourage you to move forward.

You also mention bringing this to the attention of 
someone or some party at the state. I also fully recognize your right to petition your government for assistance and encourage you to involve the State as you see fit.

These types of threats may work in some areas. But, I will not stand by or be silent when those who say they want the library to be more inclusive use these types of intimidation tactics to silence those they disagree with. This appears to me to be a disgraceful attempt to silence the voices of many of our citizens. 

I hope my position is clear but I am happy to clarify further if you have questions. Thank you for exercising your right to petition your government with your grievances. Please know that even in disagreement, we should be able to have open, honest, and transparent discussions.

Sincerely,

Ron Schieber

My Response:

Thank you for your kind and honest reply. I'll do my best to clarify what seems to be some misunderstandings. You're absolutely right: "we should be able to have open, honest, and transparent discussions." This is it. Thank you for participating. I'll clarify some of my points, but first there seems the need to refute a few inaccurate assertions you've made.

"Contrary to what you state in your message, I am directly involved and responsible for the appointment of all of the Platte County Board Members that you are asking us to remove."

I don't believe there is any contrary point in my above letter. The letter we've sent to Clay County has mentioned that Wycoff was an appointment made by their predecessors (though I'm assuming my math with terms is correct here). I understand fully you and the others addressed in this email are the ones responsible for the appointments.

"I find it ironic and quite disturbing that you are interested in an inclusive library system but you want us to remove members of the governing body for expressing their concerns."

Wrong. Completely. What we've pointed out is that these board members do not want system materials treated equally -- and only speak out when wanting to silence viewpoints they may find personally offensive. In what work environment is that an okay behavior? You are correct that they are there to represent the public -- the definition of their purview however does not allow them to ignore the concept of intellectual freedom -- the foundation of the purpose of public libraries. That is where they have disgraced this position. We want our library boards to be made up of public servants of all sorts of personal views -- but they must uphold the foundations of the Library Bill of Rights. I want to see books in my local library from every point on the sociopolitical spectrum. Why? Because the purpose of a library is to provide free and open access to all the information it can, void of bias -- those you have appointed have clearly demonstrated a bias.

  "Removing a person from service who disagrees with your position is not the way to best serve our community or the library constituents."

We are not asking they be removed because we disagree on a "position." We are asking they be removed because they have demonstrated they are incapable of acting maturely in their position (please see their desire to "lurk" in comments sections, sowing negativity with their board status unknown to the public).
And this position requires a board who believes in intellectual freedom. These individuals clearly do not -- and thus, do not believe in the purpose of libraries. IF, by some sad happenstance you believe in appointing people to the library board who are fundamentally anti-library -- that's something the public should know.

"I will oppose any and all attempts by you and your organization to censor our appointments..."

"I will oppose any and all attempts" -- I'm saddened to hear you're immediately reluctant to understand where the public is coming from, but I'm thankful you're honest about it. "censor our appointments" -- We have no desire to "censor" anyone. Your appointments have clearly abandoned the purview of their post -- so we ask you to replace them.

"To be inclusive, constituents who disagree with you have just as much need for a voice on the board and certainly have the right to the same representation on the board."

You're absolutely correct here. However, here your use of this statement is a false equivalency. The issue isn't about whether the board members personally agree or disagree with how books should be displayed or if they personally agree or disagree with LGBTQ+ issues. It's about their readiness to speak out against intellectual freedom and the right to read. It's about their opposition to the core values libraries are based on. And, yes, how grossly they've expressed these view in an unbecoming manner.

"[The ALA] have no governing authority." & "...and encourage you to involve the State as you see fit"

Again, you are absolutely correct. And, personally, I'm glad these positions are appointed rather than elected. The last thing we need mucking up library boards is politicization via an election. The ALA would simply be help bring a spotlight to the situation at a larger level. Likewise, no one individual at the state level would be of great help -- but several state representatives may consider legislation based on how they see this office handles the situation. I understand there's no pressure for you to do anything here -- I've read you're not seeking re-election. Nevertheless, we can focus on generating a massive fundraising and "get out the vote" effort for the upcoming elections regarding the other commissioners in 2025.

"These types of threats"

I'm sorry if anything in the above email sounded like a threat, instead of a request for help, with the assurance we are dedicated to seeking all avenues to right a clear wrong. Please, do appoint people of vastly different views which capture your constituents' beliefs -- but not ones who only speak up to oppose the very purpose of the board they sit on, or only speak up when they desire to silence marginalized groups.
Library trustees should be appointed to support the mission of libraries -- something that is clearly defined at the national level. This isn't about politics or who personally believes in this, that, or the other. This is about getting folks on our library board who will act with the tact and maturity the position deserves and uphold the concept of intellectual freedom. These board member's actions have clearly demonstrated they aren't up to either of those tasks.

Thank you for your time, openness, and dialog.

I hope my position is clear, but I am happy to clarify further if you have questions. I was worried your office's response might veer condescending or dismissive -- thank you for proving me wrong. Thank you for your open, honest, and transparent discussion.

I can't wait to hear your response as well as thoughts from your colleagues.

Best.