The Unsavory Saga of the Hamline Midway Library: Public Documents Part 2

Below you’ll find emails that I reference in my most recent Medium blog post and that I have found most relevant to unfolding discussion and debate about the future of our neighborhood library. I have redacted the names of any person who is not a public employee.

SPPL does not get started on doing community outreach until February 2021 for an early April CIB deadline.

SPPL did not waste time shooting down the co-location proposal. There is no evidence they made any effort in 2021 to explore its potential.

Director Penkert reveals in an internal email message that the plan all along was to tear down the library and build a new one, not to renovate, nor to expand. Note the crossed-out edits.

HMLA decides on March 24 to not seek another community meeting and to go ahead with support of a teardown and rebuild.

SPPL works at the last minute to reach out to PED to get answers about how their rushed CIB proposal will be viewed within the framework of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. PED details the many policies that are in conflict with demolition, while SPPL tries to figure out how to sell the “trickier issue” of a new build.

SPPL allows HMLA to confidentially view and provide content edits to its public statements, in this case a public blog post that never went public.

Director Penkert makes clear that her allegiances lie with HMLA, neglecting to note other opinion pieces that had been written and misrepresenting the thinking behind the co-location idea to Library Director Jane Prince. Director Penkert also neglects to answer the questions about lack of engagement in planning the future of the library.

SPPL leadership finally decides, without any background work, to just propose a renovate and expand option. They continue to misrepresent the co-location idea and exaggerate its barriers, especially around security. And they neglect ideas put forth to them to sell the current building as they build new elsewhere in order to be fiscally responsible.

HMLA advises SPPL to publicly shoot down the co-location idea, as SPPL springs a new proposal upon HMLA, much to HMLA’s surprise — as they’d been confidentially briefed that SPPL would make a different proposal just 1.5 weeks earlier.

SPPL provides input on the tone — not just facts or content — of an HMLA op-ed.

HMLA makes inappropriate comments privately to SPPL about those advocating for preservation and co-location, making clear that SPPL and HMLA see others with differing points of view as opponents, rather than collaborators.

Director Penkert lays out her reasoning for not considering co-location, which seems to amount to a few conversations with SPPL employees 3 years ago. She does not note any efforts to inquire about solutions to concerns at the City’s existing co-located libraries.

It appears that as late as June 2021, despite SPPL’s best efforts to shoot down the co-location idea and get other City departments to sign on to those efforts, there was possible interest from Parks and Rec and others in exploring co-location.