MY TURN: Tom Hanley My Turn misleading

In a My Turn column published March 7, Community Library Network (CLN) Trustee Tom Hanley attempted to oversimplify the ongoing conflict between the Cooperative Information Network (soon to be rebranded as Inland Northwest Libraries, or INL) and the CLN. He framed the debate as a false choice between those who "protect children" and those who do not. This misleading narrative, a classic Straw Man fallacy, is designed to distract from the real issue: the CLN’s unilateral attempt to seize control of the INL and impose its extreme ideological agenda on an entire network of libraries that serve both Idaho and Washington. 

The INL consists of 25 libraries across two states, seven of which belong to the CLN. This interconnected system ensures that cardholding members can access resources from any participating library. The benefits are clear: a resident of Post Falls can borrow books from Liberty Lake or Coeur d’Alene, even when those books are unavailable at their local branch. This access is further enhanced by the Libby system, which provides eBooks and audiobooks to all members. 

However, the CLN board has actively undermined this access, with its director removing books from circulation and locking them away in his office. This deliberate act of censorship directly contradicts the principles of open access and shared resources that define the INL. 

The CLN board’s aggressive campaign to limit minors’ access to materials is being carried out under the guise of “protecting children” and aligning with Idaho House Bill 710, which went into effect July 1, 2024. The law allows parents to request that specific books be relocated to the adult section if they are deemed harmful to minors. 

However, in the seven months since the law’s enactment, there have been only 16 such requests in the CLN — mostly from a single individual. This reveals a stark reality: the vast majority of parents are not concerned about these materials, nor do they feel the need for government intervention to regulate their children’s reading choices. Rather than respecting parental authority, the CLN board has taken it upon itself to act as the ultimate arbiter of what minors can and cannot access, disregarding the wishes of the very parents they claim to be protecting. 

A major escalation in this conflict is CLN board’s recent decision to revoke the open-access library cards of 8,900 minors — cards that were explicitly chosen by their parents. This decision has far-reaching consequences, not just for those within the CLN but for all minors in the INL system. 

• Minors from outside the CLN will face restricted access to CLN materials, disrupting the seamless interlibrary loan system that has served families for years. 

• The INL board opposes this blatant disregard for parental rights and recognizes the technical and logistical challenges these restrictions will create across the network. 

• Most alarming, this move sets a dangerous precedent: if the CLN board succeeds, what stops them from expanding their censorship efforts even further? 

While CLN board has publicly focused on the 16 books flagged under House Bill 710, the reality is far more disturbing. The CLN board has already identified hundreds of books they claim to be “harmful,” and the situation is escalating. 

• Roughly 200 books are currently locked away in the director’s office, inaccessible to the public. 

• The CLN board is in the process of creating a so-called “smut room” — a restricted area where books they unilaterally deem inappropriate will be stored. 

• If this ideologically driven censorship continues unchecked, the number of banned books will only grow. 

The INL board is rightfully alarmed by the CLN’s actions — not only because of their ethical implications but also due to the legal risks they pose. Attorneys have already warned of potential lawsuits that could target the entire cooperative, holding all INL member libraries liable for the CLN board’s overreach. 

The question that demands an answer is this: who gets to decide what is appropriate for children to read — individual parents, or a small group of ideologues imposing their beliefs on an entire community? 

The INL believes in trusting parents. The CLN board does not. 

If the CLN board is allowed to continue down this path, it will not only erode the freedom of public libraries but also set a dangerous precedent for censorship and government overreach in our communities. This is not just a local issue — it is a battle for intellectual freedom, parental rights and the fundamental role of libraries in a democratic society.

• • •

Michelle Lippert is a Post Falls resident.