By Kevin Gosztola, Editor-in-Chief
Elmwood Park Public Library Director Michael Consiglio presented a new policy to force the Elmwood Park Advocate and other community groups based in Elmwood Park to pay a $100 fee when they use the library’s main meeting room.
“These people should like to pay a fee of $100, anybody that wants to use it,” Consiglio declared during a meeting of the Library Board’s Bylaws, Policy, & Personnel (BGPP) Committee.
The new policy would exclude “verifiable” 501c3 organizations or organizations with “Illinois nonprofit status,” according to Consiglio.
Consiglio also said that he would like to prevent any group or organizations that use the meeting room from holding “candidate forums,” even if all candidates running in a village election are invited.
The Ferrentino Meeting Room near the entrance of the library is the main meeting room. It has a 60-person capacity, and this is where the library holds the vast majority of its programs. It is typically where the Library Board of Trustees regularly meets as well.
As long as the library does not have a program scheduled for the room, governmental agencies, nonprofit community groups, and “other organizations that serve and support the residents of Elmwood Park” are welcome to reserve the main meeting room.
Consiglio said during the committee meeting that the 2024 meeting room policy allows “free use by nonprofit community groups.” Only businesses or for-profit organizations are required to pay $100 an hour.
However, beginning in July, Consiglio was pressured by a very small group, including Library Board President Chris Pesko, to treat the Elmwood Park Advocate differently. The group objected to the newsletter using the main meeting room for “Community Conversations.”
Consiglio specifically informed the newsletter on July 25 that this group of unnamed people questioned the “process and rationale behind hosting your meetings at the library.” They specifically requested that the library director “enforce” the policy in a manner that would require the library to charge the newsletter $100 an hour for the room.
The Elmwood Park Advocate immediately objected and met with Consiglio on July 28 to resolve this matter. (Note: Deputy editor Sara Lindsay and myself were present for the meeting.)
During the meeting, the library director told the newsletter that Pesko and others were afraid that the Elmwood Park Advocate might use the main meeting room to promote opposition candidates during the 2027 Village Elections. It was apparently a big enough concern for Pesko that he communicated with Consiglio about it for two months.
Consiglio said access for not-for-profit groups or organizations should be free. He also insisted the library would never hold a program where the cost was $25 per person. “That’s what your property taxes are for.”
After making it clear that there should not be a cost for any residents, the library director invited the Elmwood Park Advocate to contact Library Board Trustee Mike Monahan and ask him to propose a meeting room policy change that would specifically state that the main meeting room could be used by all not-for-profit groups and organizations based in Elmwood Park for free.
Yet on September 8, during the library board’s BGPP committee meeting, Consiglio reversed course and again bowed to pressure from Pesko and a very small group of residents.
“See what I’m concerned [about], and in the back of my mind, is what happened in Oak Park. Okay, there was huge exposure, and the [library] director lost their job.” He worried about an event going on the calendar, and it looking like the library was sponsoring it.
But the example in Oak Park is irrelevant to the proposed policy change. The meeting room policy clearly states that the “presentation of a program or holding of a meeting does not constitute Library endorsement of the views of the persons holding the meeting, program speakers, or other participants.”
Additionally, when a not-for-profit group or organization like the Elmwood Park Advocate makes a reservation, it does not appear on the Elmwood Park Public Library’s calendar.
The Elmwood Park Advocate has a “Community Conversation” scheduled for 1 p.m. on Saturday, September 20, that Consiglio already approved. It is not listed on that date because it is not a library-led event. (The “Taste The Roast! Coffee Tasting” event, however, is listed because it is a library-led event.)
At one point during the committee meeting, the library director asked attorney James Ferolo whether the library could prohibit organizations from holding candidate forums. Ferolo, who was filling in for the library’s regular attorney Thomas Melody, advised Consiglio that the library must uphold the First Amendment.
“A meeting room is considered a designated public forum, which means you cannot restrict based on content,” Ferolo stated. “And if you do restrict based on content, you’re under what is called a strict scrutiny analysis, which is the most difficult to meet as a governmental body. Meaning your rationale has to be compelling and the most narrowly tailored to accomplish your goals.”
Consiglio handed out a packet that contained an analysis on the “situation” with the Elmwood Park Advocate. Given the focus of the library director, the library board president, and now the library board trustees, it is evident that the proposed policy change stems from an effort to curtail our First Amendment rights to access a designated public forum.
The library director may consult with the library attorney in an effort to make it seem like charging groups or organizations to use the main meeting room isn’t the result of a plan specifically aimed at the Elmwood Park Advocate.
Since June, the newsletter has engaged in First Amendment-protected actions in a designated public forum. The rationale for holding our meetings at the library is that the library meeting room is supposed to be open to groups or organizations for education, culture, charity, advocacy, civic engagement, religion, or even political discussions.
No matter how the policy change is sold to the public, it is tainted by pettiness. The change would not have been pursued if the newsletter had not reserved the room and hosted “Community Conversations” on traffic safety, disaster readiness, and where village residents get their local news.
The United States Press Freedom Tracker even added the library’s treatment of this newsletter to their database of press freedom incidents.
The Library Board's behavior here is really abhorrent and in clear violation of First Amendment rights. I think the Advocate should consider legal action. No matter your political affiliation, we should be concerned and angered that our public services, paid for by our taxes, are being denied to members of the community. If the current administration is operating above-board and in favor of its community, why are they so obsessed with silencing differing opinions?
Wow. This is totally bonkers. You have this journalist's support... as a community newsletter, you should be able to utilize public spaces such as libraries for community conversations. This is, in fact, the beauty of independent journalism. This example paints the image that village leadership doesn't stand for the First Amendment... and that is wholly concerning.