By Kevin Gosztola, Editor-in-Chief
Elmwood Park Public Library Director Michael Consiglio proposed a new meeting room policy that would enable viewpoint discrimination and restrict residents’ speech at the library. It would also give the library director the authority to deny meeting room access to any group that engages in speech which he dislikes.
The proposed meeting room policy, obtained by the Elmwood Park Advocate after the newsletter submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, was drafted by Consiglio. He presented it at the Library Board’s Bylaws, Goals, Policy, and Personnel (BGPP) Committee meeting on September 8. (A copy of the drafted policy is available for download at the end of the article.)
Previously, the Elmwood Park Advocate reported on the committee meeting, where Consiglio announced that the library would be forcing the newsletter and other resident-led community groups 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 at the meeting. But “verifiable” 501c3 nonprofit organizations or organizations with “Illinois nonprofit status” would be excluded.
It was evident that Consiglio intended to further establish a two-tiered system of access that would require residents to potentially spend a thousand or more dollars a year if they wished to use library spaces for regular monthly meetings.
Back in June and July, several individuals, along with Library Board President Chris Pesko, questioned the “process and rationale behind hosting [our] meetings at the library.” They specifically requested that the library director interpret the current policy so that this not-for-profit newsletter would be charged as if it were a business or for-profit organization.
The library director should remain neutral and avoid unconstitutional discrimination. However, Consiglio ultimately took up the cause of the hecklers who were upset by the Advocate’s “Community Conversations.”
This policy shows that the library director would now like to have veto power over a broad range of speech.
A section of the proposed meeting room policy labeled as “Communications and Neutrality” states:
If enacted, it would mean that the library director would police speech that groups and residents engage in outside of the library in order to determine who is eligible or disqualified from using the meeting rooms. This would be blatantly unconstitutional.
The American Library Association (ALA) has made clear, “Government agencies and government officials are forbidden from regulating or restricting speech or other expression based on its content or viewpoint. Criticism of the government, political dissatisfaction, and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy are nearly always protected by the First Amendment.”
Of course, that statement by the ALA applied to speech inside of the library. They probably would be stunned to see a library director claiming that they could regulate or restrict speech outside of the library.
The censorship provision would further apply to “advocacy groups” and “referencing comments made by trustees, staff or attendees” at library meetings.
Those who do not submit to the library director’s censorship regime may face punishment or retaliation for their speech, as outlined here:
Meeting rooms offered for public use are what is known as designated public forums. Libraries, according to the ALA, must “uphold the First Amendment rights of all users.”
The current meeting room policy already prohibits advocacy for the “election or defeat of a particular candidate or candidates for public office” or advocacy for “affirmative or negative votes concerning any public proposition,” like a ballot measure.
In 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit invalidated a school board policy after a resident claimed his free speech rights were violated. The Madison Local School District in Ohio had adopted a policy to restrict “abusive,” “personally directed,” and “antagonistic” public comments. The appeals court found that the policy constituted “impermissible viewpoint discrimination” and violated the First Amendment.
After the appeals court ruled against the school board, the school district agreed to pay $107,500 and no longer “restrict speech that is abusive, personally directed or antagonistic.”
Similarly, the library director proposed the following in response to statements made by the Elmwood Park Advocate:
If adopted, such a restriction would clearly infringe upon the free speech rights of residents.
Remarkably, while the library director is pursuing anti-democratic changes to the meeting room policy, he is arbitrarily enforcing the current policy. He claims the library “cannot make judgments about the value or neutrality of a group’s viewpoint without risking unconstitutional discrimination.”
Yet that is exactly what Consiglio has sought to do by changing the meeting room policy—judge whether a person or group is political, partisan, or engaged in advocacy through some unspecified criteria, and then bar them from reserving library meeting rooms.
All of what Consiglio has proposed would particularly impact community clubs, cultural organizations, and booster clubs that do not have the structure to form a nonprofit. It would also mean that residents who reserve the room for independent film, music, or theater production would have to pay substantial amounts of money for a meeting room.
At the moment, the library director’s meeting room policy proposal will be considered by library board trustees during the next BGPP Committee meeting on October 13.
The Elmwood Park Advocate was previously told that the library’s attorney Thomas Melody had made “substantial revisions.” When the newsletter asked Consiglio if there was anything in particular that the library’s attorney had revised or removed, the library director declined to respond to this question.
Regardless of whether the parts that encourage censorship are still in the policy, Consiglio has shown that he either does not understand the First Amendment or he does not care about flagrantly violating the First Amendment.
The bottom line is that there should be no tolerance for village executives or elected officials, who attempt to clampdown on speech in government spaces open to the public.
To view a copy of the 2025 Meeting Room Policy Proposal, as drafted for the BGPP Committee meeting on September 8, 2025, download it here:
These were the folks that were elected by the community democratically to advance what they wanted In The local government. It may not align with what you see as the direction of the county but it is what the majority of those who choose to vote did want.
Does the ALA have the authority to supercede a elected official?
I would say if you feel you have a strong case you should move forward with finding a probono lawyer to assist. But I am not seeing how he is violating any actual laws here.
It would be a I treating case to follow to see if a new president could be set.