Dear Henry Thomas

I read with interest the recent exchange of mail between you and Mr Reginald Wilson, former supervisor of the Mason Square library. I'd like to respond to the points you made, if I may.

You make the point that the Springfield Urban League is older than the Mason Square library, as though that gives the UL pride of place. But the two institutions are not competing, nor is the UL even at risk here, so I'm not quite sure why you felt the need for that comparison. The point being made by Mr Wilson is that the Mason Square library has been a neighborhood institution for two generations and deserves respect. No one would argue that the UL doesn't also deserve respect, but surely that's unrelated to the library's merit?

You argue that the SLMA is a private institution and has the right to do as it pleases, and you point out that parochial schools, the Basketball HoF, and 'countless other private institutions' receive public support. But I'm sure you know that the situation is different with SLMA, an anachronistic quango. Only the SLMA was chartered to provide a fully public service, only SLMA receives essentially all its funding for the libraries from the public purse, and the bodies that operate municipal libraries elsewhere are public, not private. I think that difference would be recognised by the courts, don't you? Particularly as city residents would be left holding the bag for the recent major renovation at Mason Square?

You claim that a 'vast number' of neighborhood people support your takeover. Are you sure you aren't mistaking politeness for support? I've not heard anyone or heard of anyone who supports the loss of the library, so I have to wonder whether you're overvaluing the support you receive. Perhaps you could get the supporters of the takeover to show themselves?

You say the bottom line is that the library was almost always closed and scheduled for disposal. But that's one of the oldest and now most transparent scams in the book, and I can't
understand why a man of your experience would expect us to take it seriously as an explanation. Could you perhaps clarify why you think we should have any respect for it? Because the
sequence is completely predictable: starve a public service organisation for resources, then blame it for being less and less able to supply its service, and finally 'solve' the 'problem' by
selling off the organisation's resources for pennies in the dollar to some private operator who claims he will fix things. We can identify it as a scam because the 'problems' are always
manufactured by the controlling authority, never natural. Making the library unavailable to the neighborhood, for example, was a administrative decision by SLMA, not an inevitable response to outside forces. It was planned.

As Andrew Carnegie (who donated 3 of Springfield's libraries) knew from his own experience, libraries are a vital resource for working people. They are much more important to working people than to the wealthy. I think that fact might have some significance for understanding why SLMA -composed largely of wealthy suburbanites- might choose to sell off a library sited in
a working-class neighborhood that has a large Black population. What's less clear is why a leader of the Black community would choose to collude in that destruction, Mr Thomas.

There are other buildings you could buy for your headquarters. Mr Wilson mentioned Mr Frank Buntin's list of potential sites, and I'm sure those are not the only ones available to you.

But there is only one Mason Square library. You can choose to take the Urban League elsewhere, but we cannot easily move the library. Particularly with the burden of the Mason Square
renovation costs hanging around our necks.

With Mr Wilson, I would urge you to do the right thing: look elsewhere for your new headquarters. The City Council has already determined that it is not in the public interest for SLMA
to sell, or you to buy, any library buildings. If you turn elsewhere now, people will see you as a statesman with the public good uppermost in mind. But if you try to go ahead with this
illegitimate purchase, you will continue to meet opposition, and that opposition will escalate, and people will come to see in you a crass opportunist who doesn't care about the public good.
Surely that's not the image or legacy you want?

Please, Mr Thomas, do the right thing.

Kindest regards,
Margaret T.