Upcoming WBAI Town Halls

Library defenders may remember that for much the same reason that Citizens Defending Library co-founders Michael D. D. White and Carolyn McIntyre have been fighting to defend our libraries, they have similarly gotten involved with WBAI radio, 99.5fm, the only truly listener supported radio station in New York City.  (The both went on WBAI's local station broad.)  Free speech radio WBAI can also be called, as it sometimes is, "radio for the 99.5%."

 As part of WBAI's grassroots celebrating governance tradition, WBAI holds Town Halls for public discussion and input.  Library Defenders may want to get involved with these as Michael and Carolyn have.  As you will see from the descriptions below for prospective featured Town Hall topics, the concerns to be grappled with in the WBAI community and the Pacifica free speech radio network of which it is a part, tend to have a lot in common with concerns involved in defending libraries.  This includes concerns like censorship and narrative control, what happens when our traditional analogue has to contend with the arrival sometime dubious benefits of digital revolution, and finally having to fend off skulking would-be privatizers.

Our next Town Hall has been decided upon and will be held by Zoom on Sunday, August 28th at 4:00 PM (see below).  Library Defenders are invited and welcome.

You may also want to give input on what Town Halls you'd like to see prioritized to be held next or may have ideas for additional topics or coverage to what appears below.

To get information about attending email Michael White at MDDWhite [[at]] aol.com. 

UPCOMING WBAI TOWN HALLS

Debating Debates, Particularly On The Most Divisive Issues, Probably Starting With Covid.  (Sunday, August 28th at 4:00 PM-  Listen to or watch the Recording HERE using the Passcode: uq@$8Uam:) Will debates improve and help make the WBAI and Pacifica environment healthier?  Can debates increase audience and bring in revenue?  Can debates create a more unified, free and exploratory thinking free speech radio audience and valuable listener membership?  Perhaps the best and most topical example, which is up for discussion, is the way that Covid questions  divide and fracture the cohesion and unity of political cultures that, once upon a time, self identified regarding themselves as anti-corporate, anti-monopoly, pro-health and anti-big Pharma, and anti-authoritarian (and possibly as Left).  At least two sides in Covid discussions are claiming that they are “following the science,” while others absolutely don’t.  Anthony Fauci has announced that he is “science,” and he along with those of whom are Fauci followers say that to doubt Fauci is an “attack on science,” moreover an attack on “truth.”  If shows on Pacifica showcase Fauci while describing invermectin as a “horse dewormer” that is spuriously “touted in right-wing media” as a beneficial treatment for Covid, if Pacifica stations run government PSAs about Covid safety, should the slant of that `reporting’ and air time use get debated?  If so, by whom? Some serious money has been talked about as flowing in connection with the prospect of Covid issue debates: Multi-millionaire and activist Steve Kirsch has issued multiple million dollar backed challenges for qualified people just to show up and debate the Covid issues, but some people parry that because people like Fauci “are science” it would be undignified for them to debate, or they feel that only those who have credentialed themselves by receiving money from Fauci and the Big-Pharma should be allowed offer opinions as to what may be the facts respecting Covid, vaccines, and best health practices.  NOTE: Attendees of this Town Hall are also invited to play a social justice and debate game of chance– To play this game take any three of the last four digits of your phone number, and arrange them into a number between 23 and 894 and then submit that number together with your name when you attend.  

WBAI and Pacifica Decisions- Competing Successfully With the Internet vs And/or Becoming Internet Successful.  (Sunday, September 18th at 4:00 PM- Zoom information to attend is in the Pacifica/WBAI calendar-click on the date- and the CDL Calendar) Listen to or watch the Recording HERE using the Passcode:!0b0MppY  The Pacifica Network originated as a network of terrestrial radio stations.  It’s no secret that the internet has brought a lot of “creative destruction” to all businesses, but particularly to virtually all forms of media, terrestrial radio included.  Just as the Craig’s list usurpation of classified ads worked to defund and financially starve newspapers, terrestrial radio’s business model has been challenged as audiences are siphoned off by an ever greater multiplicity of internet-based challengers supplying huge varieties of content, listening experiences included, that frequently seem even more convenient to access.  Most people now carry a smart phone in their pocket. Those phones easily access the internet providing podcasts or other forms of available listening streams, but those ubiquitous phones don’t provide terrestrial radio connections (although they easily could have that added feature).   Search engines and algorithms readily (and censoriously) direct people to internet-based content, but not, per se, without added effort, to terrestrial radio.  Terrestrial radio has understandably seen its audiences diminished.  This doesn’t mean that the audience for alternative media is diminishing: Alternative media on the internet is flourishing.  It is flourishing despite Big Tech’s exercise of considerable censorship.  Its audiences are growing to increasingly dwarf the audience of the Big Tech promoted legacy and corporate media.  But the Pacifica network stations, that once were the sine qua non in providing definitive alternative media, have not participated in that audience growth and shift to alternative media.  Is that because of Pacifica’s lack of internet savvy and presence?  Is internet savvy and slickness what’s needed to keep pace and similarly outpace corporate narratives?  Maybe, but as the recent spectacularly ignominious demise of CNN+ demonstrates, internet slickness alone means nothing in terms of capturing audience.  Also, as we reposition ourselves, reinventing ourselves in this internet world, might it not also be important to recognize characteristics of the internet from which audience might want to escape?: the data scraping, and regular surveillance, Big Tech’s curation and constant steering of what you see there along with censorship that includes the evanescence with which what’s on the internet can disappear when censored.  While we probably want to do both, what takes priority: for WBAI and Pacifica to compete with the internet on our own terrestrial radio terms, or to become internet successful with all the tools associated with success in that realm?

Recognizing The Methods By Which Public Assets Are Targeted, Taken Over, or Otherwise Neutralized (And Goals of Those Doing So).  Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 4:00 PM- Listen to or watch the Recording HERE using the Passcode:9?gHZPw4.   WBAI and all its sister stations in the Pacifica Network are part of our public commons.  They are publicly owned and controlled public assets.  Anyone can listen.  There are no bars to access, no user fees are demanded.  It exists through public contributions donated to freely benefit, without restriction, the entire larger community.  It therefore stands in contradistinction to and it competes with privately owned entities, including the corporately owned mainstream and legacy media.  Those other entities exist for different purposes pursuing different goals.

More and more frequently, we see the private sector targeting public assets and the commons for privatization, or sometimes just working toward its destruction, neutralization and/or possible replacement.  An explanation sometimes given is that, as capital continues to build up, it exhausts traditional investment opportunities and is forced to seek new, less traditional assets to acquire and monetize.  Or is it partly just what happens when there’s so much of this money sloshing around?  Quite importantly, it is important to remember that the competition from the Pacifica stations is a threat not only just to the goals and purposes of the corporately owned media, but also to the agenda of all the corporate expires and the rest of the establishment institutions with which corporate owned media is so fearsomely and completely interlocked.  Also efforts are always made to quash, any examples that model alternatives to the profit based capitalism (e.g. how we relentless impose sanctions of socialist countries, then declare the systems don’t work).

There is substantial overlap, but public assets may be privatized, or public entities that own and control such assets may also be taken over accomplishing the same thing. Similarly public purpose organizations may be targeted, or political parties, political movements, or causes may be targeted for takeover, redirection or ineffectualizeation.

In learning to recognize the tactics that used it is probably important to discern the goals of those acting to commandeer public realm assets and enterprises.  Those goals can be multiple: To monetize or privately profit from the changed ownership or control (e.g. privatized road for toll collection, library real estate turned into luxury condos); elimination of alternative models of success; squelching competition; thwarting an anti-corporate mission or promulgation of any anti-corporate narratives; while intending that good work of an entity should cease, it may also be the goal to use the accumulated prior good work and built up good will and trust of a captured entity to send the public off in wrong directions (e.g. captured environmental groups touting fracking as a “clean transitional fuel”); the captured entity can be used as a resource drain or suck (e,g. a captured public purpose entity political faction that continues to seek donations so that donated money is sidelined, not going to productive use; similarly, a takeover may be slow or incomplete, existing for a long time as a battlefield to drain the financial strengths, talent and available man hours of those fighting for pubic goods– much as the U.S. lured the Soviet Union into Afghanistan intending to sap its resources); lastly when privatization shifts functions away from the government (.e. the internet, the Post Office, surveillance agencies) to private entities, those private entities may have a freer hand (decision making included) to do that, which the Constitution (or voter control) might prevent the government from doing.

In this context, can we identify and discuss some of tactics used when targeting the public commons?  They include draining and starving the entity of funding (creating an argument that someone else or alternatives are better), creating crises, undervaluing the assets, working in stealth to formulate top-down takeover plans, infiltrattion of decision-making processes with people who are unsympathetic to the public and to public goals; dismissing, avoiding and interfering with workable alternatives and ways to keep public assets robust and self-sustaining; sending in disrupters who may engage in obvious power plays (“steering committee” grabs) and divide and conquer techniques (they may also use the CIA/FBI COINTELPRO tactics of promoting unworkable bureaucracy), and, for the longer term, sending in “pivot people” (and information collectors) who will be regarded as helping until their numbers build sufficiently for a flip in tactics/board control/etc; buy influence and position within the entity with appreciable donations, co-opting the goal-and-purpose language of the entity, which can also include redefining that language into less meaningful watered down expressions of purpose; set up astro-turf alternatives and competition.  We leave this list open for more thought and additions.

Effective Directing of Resources For Good Influence.  (Part 1- Saturday, February 25th at 4:00 PM-  Listen to or watch the Recording HERE using the Passcode:*+G&6Z8* Part 2- Will be Sunday March 26th at 4:00 PM,  see the CDL Calendar for March 26 for Zoom meeting sign on information.)
You are paying at your pharmacy’s cash register, and the screen to confirm your payment asks whether you want to ‘round up’ your payment to make a donation their charity. Answer: No!- Why would you want a pharmacy chain with probably too many connections to Big Pharma, corporations and the medical establishment to be directing your money to where they want it to go?  A candidate is running for office: Do you donate to their campaign?  Maybe, if it qualifies them to get into debates where they are going to force discussion of certain issues.  In a flood of emails you are asked to donate again to a political party: Do you do it?  And have your money be the tail on a dog funded by lots of mega-corporations? Don’t think so!  Similarly, stopped on the street, you are asked to donate to save animals, protect the environment, or children via a charity that’s backed by big business conglomerates while parking political operatives at high-profile salaries.  Where do you put your money to influence the world for the better? Jane Mayer reported that the Koch brother’s decided to put their money into causes first, rather than politicians who could flip on them. What about sending some of your money and resources to WBAI and Pacifica for the influence it can have on the world?  Next question, when resources come into WBAI and Pacifica, how can they best be directed within the Pacifica environment?; to improve programming attracting a bigger audience, or to promote the good shows already here?. . Maybe paying for social media promotion that might be quashed by Big tech algorithms?  There is a lot up for discussion in a two-part WBAI Town Hall.

Music Programming on WBAI and Pacifica Stations.  Sometimes some of our biggest radio listening audiences, often along with reliably sizable donations come in from music programs.  But music comes in such variety. .   what music should best make its way onto our airwaves and how much should be played of all varieties to make way for all the richness that is available?  Furthermore, isn’t music deeply imbued with cultural message?  In this regard, should we now ask: Where have all the anti-war songs gone?  The protest songs?  Are they still being written?  Or should music perhaps be a justifiable and carefree respite and refuge from the blocks of talk radio Pacifica programs where we assiduously exercise our consciences searching for solutions for the world’s societal problems and what own role should be in pursuing such solutions?  Other questions: Should we strive to feature, perhaps prioritize: local talent?; live performances?; new current era music vs. music that, like the oft revered American Song Book or the nostalgic oldies you hear played in supermarkets, have withstood the test of time becoming familiar airs?  
              
Improving WBAI and Pacifica Reputation and Brand. Do WBAI and Pacifica suffer from “reputational handicap.”  Do our stations have a reputation for lack of professionalism?  Does our democratic, grass roots governance structure mean we have reputations for destructive infighting, and if so, is this inevitable or available?   Do we undermine the free speech radio brand we seek to promote with signals that we only tolerate a narrow range of discourse?  Are we viewed as a welcoming home to, and reliable platform for, new, different and a wide range of voices that can provide alternatives to the corporate media?  Or are we hobbled by uncertainties about that?  If our reputation handicaps us, it can dissuade people, potential show hosts and producers, from bringing programs, messages and content to WBAI’s air.  Similarly, it can limit our pool of applicants for those who might work at the station or network.  It can drive away potential LSB board members or others who might be willing to contribute constructively in different ways to WBAI’s and Pacifica’s governance.  It can intimidate people who might step up to provide special fundraising premiums based on their work.  It can scare away potential contributors who could be making donations. Listeners may not then have a positive and clear perception of the WBAI brand, plus it may interfere with a full spectrum of good feelings about the station as a welcoming community. It can foster the idea that WBAI and Pacifica have no future.  Robust disagreement and debates between friends and allies is valuable.  It can even be friendly.  Alternative media can be a very big tent without ever retreading any of the corporate media narratives. But are we instead suffering from the effects of divide and conquer?  If so, what do we do to improve our brand and reputation.

WBAI and Pacifica Stepping Into The Breach As We Increasingly See More Internet Censorship.  If we are free speech radio, do we find that our most valuable content for the airwaves will be in inverse proportion to that which is censored?  Maybe that’s always been the case, but is it possible that the increasingly blatant censorship of the internet coming from Big Tech as an arm of government gives WBAI and Pacifica a perfect opportunity to strengthen, burnish and promote our brand?  And doesn’t it mean that the areas where there has been the most intense censorship is exactly where we should step in with flourish.  With the RT takedown much valuable alternative media programming was banished and disappeared, including our own “Chris Hedges On Contact” program.  Chris Hedges is one area where we stepped into the breach to broadcast a new resurrected version of Hedges’ weekly broadcast.  That’s something we can toot our horn about! It’s an age-old story with us that anti-war content, and content about promoting peace, have been intensely censored and squelched in our mainstream corporate media.  Likewise, criticism of capitalism and information about systematic racism, particularly the forms it takes with our police and in our prisons.  What else is high on the censorship list these days? It would seem at least the following: The conduct of the Israeli state in occupied Palestine, the topic of Big Pharma’s influence and the reliability of related Covid issue narratives, certainly now discussion about Ukraine and NATO, the topic of Big tech and authoritarian censorship itself, and now getting onto the list is the question of whether the U.S. is in a “recession.”  Participants in the discussion can probably add to the list.  Participants are also free to argue that they think certain points of view, or people they might identify, should be censored or “curated” off the air.  Most important is whether WBAI and Pacifica are stepping up to meet and take advantage of the challenges and opportunities here.

Why Nonprofit Boards May Stray From Their Core Missions And Obligations To the Public- Considered Generally And Particularly With Respect To Libraries

Perhaps you have read some of what has been written about the way that non-profit boards can get off course from their mission to serve the public in the ways that were intended.  Some of which we have previously provided in this vein has been written specifically about the straying conduct of the boards of trustees that are supposed to be stewards of our New York City libraries.

We have some our own additional thinking to offer about the reasons such nonprofit boards may be pulled to veer off course, but first here is a taste of some of what has been written already:

    •    The Wall Street Journal: Clueless at the Corcoran- What the museum's latest bad decision says about nonprofit governance, by Eric Gibson, February, 24, 2014.

    . . .  the untold story of our time is the emerging crisis in nonprofit governance, where boards embark on policies that go against-and even imperil-the mission of the institution they are charged to oversee and protect.

    . . . The New York Public Library wants to gut its magnificent Beaux Arts building on Fifth Avenue and change it from a research institution to, as Ada Louise Huxtable wrote in this newspaper, "a state-of-the-art, socially interactive, computer-centered" circulating library, with fewer books, a good number of them moved off-site.

    •    City Limits: New Scrutiny of City's Library Trustees, by Suzanne Travers, June 18, 2014.

Over the last year, library trustees have seen more of the spotlight than usual because of moves that put boards at odds with public opinion: NYPL’s now-abandoned plan to insert a circulating library in place of the stacks at its iconic building on 42nd Street and Fifth Avenue, Brooklyn Public Library’s still-active effort to sell its Brooklyn Heights branch to private developers, and the Queen’s Public Library board’s split vote on whether to require library chief Thomas Galante to take a leave of absence given city and federal investigations into library construction projects and contracts.

These disputes have exposed weak points in the public-private hybrid structure of the libraries, where the non-profit status of boards limits outside oversight and access to information even as the libraries press for more public funding after years of cuts. At a time of growing income inequality, the role of trustees who can give or raise private money to support the libraries also prompts more fundamental questions: How representative of the city are the library boards? Whose interests do they represent?

    •    Noticing New York: Where Are They Now?: Sharon Greenberger, Evercore and the Revson Foundation- Selling And Shrinking NYC Libraries, by Michael D. D. White, June 6, 2015.

Takeover of Charitable Boards By Wall Street Financiers With Not So Charitable Values

There is new study on the increasing dominance of Wall Street financiers on charitable boards. . . by Garry W. Jenkins at Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law. .

From the report:

As financiers come to dominate the boards of leading nonprofits, it is not surprising that their approaches and priorities have made their way, very explicitly and fundamentally, into the governance of the nonprofit sector.

* * * *

A May 30, 2015 New York Times Sunday Review Op-Ed, "Who Will Watch the Charities?," by David Callahan, founder and editor of Inside Philanthropy, is far more caustic and cynical.  "(W)e should end the charade that all philanthropy is somehow charitable," says Mr. Callahan. . .   He warns a big problem with modern philanthropy: "how inextricably entwined it has become with politics and ideology."  He says:

    it's alarming how in an era of high inequality, private funders have a growing say over central areas of civic life like education and public parks, and how this influence is often wielded against a backdrop of secrecy.

    •    Melville House: Patience and Fortitude- Power, Real Estate, and the Fight to Save a Public Library- Scott Sherman (Reviews).

Sherman's most shocking revelation is how little the trustees understood the mission of the institution they claimed to be saving."
-Architectural Record

    •   NPR: 'Patience And Fortitude' And The Fight To Save NYC's Storied Public Library, by Maureen Corrigan, June 24, 2015.

Scott Sherman details how “bottom-line business logic very nearly gutted one of the world's greatest public research libraries.”

 . . . the crisis of The New York Public Library stems from the fact that it's a weird entity. It's not a state or city agency; instead, the library was founded as a private, nonprofit institution. It has always been governed by a board of trustees typically drawn from Manhattan's 1 percent.

    •    Reader Supported News (RSN): Wall Street Taking Over Nonprofit Sector, By Dan Wright, (author of Shadowproof), January 5, 2016.

. . .  a new study from the Stanford Social Innovation Review (SSIR) reveals a growing Wall Street takeover of nonprofit boards of directors.

Using data from what are referred to in the study as major private research universities, elite small liberal arts colleges, and prominent New York City cultural and health institutions, SSIR calculates that “[T]he percentage of people from finance on the boards virtually doubled at all three types of nonprofits between 1989 and 2014.”

. . . .  the banksters are not content to just donate to the nonprofit organizations, financial service industry executives are taking positions of influence and control. As one might expect, the vision Wall Street players have of and for the world often clashes with the preexisting culture within those organizations. . . .:

    . . .  it is not surprising that their approaches and priorities have made their way, very explicitly and fundamentally, into the governance of the nonprofit sector … finance practices from board members and donors whose native habitat is the financial services world. . . .  principles upon which donors base their giving …

    Numerous critics have written thoughtfully about the ways in which market-based thinking and approaches applied to the nonprofit sector provide false promise, with the potential to dilute charitable values, undermine long-term mission focus . . .

 . . . . . Wall Street is helping bring dubious management practices to the sector that was setup, in part, to deal with the failures of an economic system run by said dubious management practices. . . .  

It is apparently lost on many donors to the nonprofit sector that if nonprofit work could have been achieved through a business approach it would already have been. For Wall Street, the problem with the nonprofit sector appears to be that it’s nonprofit.

    •    The Leonard Lopate Show: Why Affordable Public Universities Are Vital to Our Democracy, March 2, 2016.

Pulitzer Prize-winning, and National Humanities Medal recipient author Marilynne Robinson:

It’s amazing, the people into whose clutches our civilization seems to have fallen are people who, if they had to basically define their response to the arts and education would say, `I don’t get it.’ It’s sort of like turning over our whole aesthetic sense to people who are color blind. . .

. . .  All these people talk as if the mere fact of being magnates of one sort or another meant that they understood the world better than other people do, you know that it should convey some authority.  And what have they done? . . .  It's a great display of something very different than shrewdness, very different from insight.  But nevertheless they're extremely confident and they are extremely ready to be active to remake the world into something that they think it should be.

    •    New York Times Op-ed via Citizens Defending Libraries: Privatized National Parks as Realms For Advertising? Tim Wu, Author of “The Attention Merchants” Writes About This And The Similar Invasion of Schools and Libraries In NT Times Op-ed,  December 6, 2016

Advertising in our public parks? . .  Tim Wu, writes about this and the privatizing takeover “spaces long thought inviolate” for the assault of commercial advertising, places such as schools, churches, our homes and libraries.

Writes Wu (emphasis supplied):

Over the next decade, prepare for a new wave of efforts to reach some of the last remaining bastions of peace, quiet and individual focus - like schools, libraries, churches and even our homes.

        * * *
  . . .  the leaders of schools, libraries and even the more principled technology firms should understand that there is always a hidden cost to the proposition offered by advertising.

        * * *
History and logic suggest that, once advertisers become a major funding source, they create their own priorities, and unless carefully controlled they will warp the underlying space to serve their interests.

Here, in list form for your consideration, are reasons that nonprofit boards may stray from and fail in properly fulfilling their missions, particularly when those boards are comprised of people who are likely wrong candidates for those boards, people who don’t care about or understand the core mission of the charity whose board they are on or who may have interests that don’t coincide with or are actually at odds with the mission of the entity whose course they are setting:

    1.    The board members may be incompetent and this can easily be due to their lack of understanding or their lack of any true interest in the nonprofit’s mission and better informing themselves about it.
    2.    The board members may have an undue focus on understanding the mission of the nonprofit purely in terms of numbers, when, in fact, the mission involves something that instead involves values and culture, a mission that in it more ephemeral way is not subject to expression in numbers.
    3.    Similarly, the board members may focus and think of things in terms of money.  This problem is likely accentuated when, more and more, the justification for selecting certain people for board appointment is that those people are wealthy enough to donate to the charity, whether they do so or not.  Perhaps this is embodied in the exchange at the beginning of Dickens' “A Christmas Carol” between Scrooge and his nephew when Scrooge is asked to make a donation to charity: - Nephew: “Oh I think there are many things from which I've derived some good, by which I have not profited financially, I dare say. There is more in life than money, Uncle." -     Scrooge: "Humbug to that!  More in life than money!  Humbug!"
    4.    The board members may be more focused on themselves than anyone else.  Perhaps a symptom of this, like at the Brooklyn Public Library, is of a grand and opulent fund raising gala that the board members attend that actually loses, rather than makes money.
    5.    The board members, coming from a different economic and cultural segment of society, may have a different world view about what would be good for everyone else in the world.  One example of this is a belief that the world should be managed with top-down decision making, something that assumes that those who have attained and hold wealth know better than the rest of us.  In the case of libraries, this can translate into top-down decision making about which books and we should all be reading.
    6.    There may be board members who are on the board for ulterior motives than involve self interest or conflict of interest.  That can extend to viewing the assets and resources of the charity not from the standpoint of how the charity’s mission can be best served, but instead how those assets and resources can be diverted or used differently with the interests of others, not the public, in mind.

There are a number of converging interests adverse to continuing the tradition of public libraries, especially in New York.  You can decide for yourself the influence of each and how big the respective arrows for each should be. 

Here is a list of  interests that can affect board members making decisions about libraries that can be contrary to the traditional and core mission of libraries as being places that provide books and facilitate research and archive human knowledge:

    1.    Trustees may have interests in library real estate, unlocking and putting into play the real estate that libraries sit on.  This can explain the proposals to sell and drastically shrink important central destination libraries like the Donnell Library and the Brooklyn Heights Library, in each case the sales netting the most minuscule fraction of what it would cost to replace these libraries, a likely net from the sale of each of those libraries of around $25 million, selling recently renovated libraries for far less than the value of a vacant lot. The NYPL Central Library Plan had similar aspirations.  With the shrinkage comes an exile and enormous loss of books, because books take up space and you can’t sell library real estate without getting rid of the books.
    2.    Trustees may wish to use the provision of libraries (and/or other basic civic services like schools) as bait to induce upzonings and other increases to development.  For maximum effect, this tactic actually begins with withholding the services/resources that will then be dangled as a carrot in front of the public.
    3.    Trustees may have an interest in promoting digital books (which are more expensive for libraries than physical books and frequently leased by libraries temporarily rather than bought and available for the future) because they have ties to the digital industry.
    4.    Trustees may have ties to the increasingly monopolistic content industry, that seeks for the public’s attention to be diverted to advertising and/or the content for which they have operative copyright controls. This includes, for instance, Amazon which, when you have to wait for books not at the library, is the place you can go to get books faster, and perhaps more cheaply when you factor in your transportation costs.
    5.    Trustees may have ties with the cable and internet content delivery services.
     6.    Trustees may have an interest in their being a top-down influence or control with respect to what people are reading or thinking about.  Top on the list for exercising influence is probably what people think in terms of politics, elections and things like altering the economic system or distribution of wealth.  It could affect, for instance, what is available to read about climate change. (“Whoever controls the past controls the future.”- George Orwell.)
    7.    Are there trustees with any interest in aiding or complying with the surveillance state by making it so that books and most knowledge can only be accessed in a digital fashion that is possible to monitor?  (Why was the most important private U.S, spy agency hired to overhaul, dismantle NYC's most important libraries?) See this Citizens Defending Libraries resource page for links it article and information about this issue:  Articles About Library Privacy and Surveillance In Libraries.
  8.    Although it is something that few would likely now admit, there may be trustees that would like there to be censorship.

Now that you have been primed with these thoughts maybe you would like to review the composition of the Brooklyn Public Library board of trustees available here: Brooklyn Public Library Trustees- Identified + Biographical and Other Information Supplied.