Candidates answer, meet and greet
DELMAR — With four trustee candidates asking for the electorate’s vote for two open seats, the Bethlehem Town Library presented a forum on April 30, allowing the candidates to speak with voters before the May 20 election.
Candidates Jill Adams, Anne Moore, Michelle Sanders, and incumbent trustee Laura DiBetta appeared to answer questions from voters that had been submitted by the April 29 deadline. Each candidate answered the same question.
Executive Director Geoffrey Kirkpatrick said the library received about thirty questions, but reduced the questions posed to four. He said the questions were somewhat repetitive and fell into four categories – censorship, building issues, community, and board actions.
Each question asked at the forum represented a question from those four categories, with each person having an opportunity to be the first and last respondent.
“That way it was fair to everyone,” Kirkpatrick said.
DiBetta is seeking to reclaim her seat for a second full term. The other three never served on the board. The other electee will fill a vacancy created after board member Lisa Scoons decided not to run for re-election.
Before the event began, candidates engaged in friendly chit-chat together. Upon commencement, they each offered an opening statement limited to five minutes.
Adams focused on her problem-solving skills and her ability to speak to people about the strengths and pitfalls of their positions. She said the bond vote results sent a “very clear message,” but she regretted the “negativity.”
“We need to work smarter and find cost-efficient, creative solutions,” she said.
DiBetta said her experience as a current trustee enables her to better understand issues. She called the failed bond project a “learning experience.”
“We heard the community clearly,” she said. “ We have work to do as a board.”
She also identified uncensored access to books, information, and programs as the biggest issue facing libraries.
Moore presented a four-point roadmap of actions she wants the board to take. Those actions include updating the 2018 structure study and then prioritizing repairs and replacement needs, expanding offerings for adult readers, requiring trustees at board meetings to respond to questions posed during public comment periods during the board meeting, and making documents, procedures, projects and financial records more transparent and easily accessible in one place.
With 25 years of library use, local business owner and volunteer Sanders emphasized her deep community ties and status as a trusted member. Her primary objectives include open access, equal opportunity, and community building.
The library board candidates expressed consensus on key topics during the forum. They all emphasized their commitment to combating censorship, their strong enthusiasm for enhancing the library, and their shared vision of establishing it as a welcoming and inclusive resource for all community members. In response to a facility question, they all agreed the building needs work, but differed on the extent.
DiBetta stressed the need to address its priorities using current funding. She also expressed a continued desire to establish a more specific and dedicated area for teenagers.
Sanders raised the space renovation and how she would like to improve the children’s space. She invited users to look at other libraries and come back to the board with ideas.
Moore focused on repair items, including the heating system, windows, and carpeting. She said she would also like to see nature-friendly plantings outside.
Unlike the other three candidates, Adams said she would have to wait and see where the board is before opining on specific needs because while she knows it is a long list, she is not yet on the board and “not up to speed.”
When asked how they would handle community pressure to remove books or materials, each candidate staunchly fell on the side of access.
Adams said she would remind people of the institution’s mission to provide “uncensored access to resources and information.” “If there’s something you don’t want to look at, don’t look at it,” she said. She added, “I don’t understand why a library would ban a book to begin with.”
DiBetta recounted how the issue was handled when a patron objected to a book. “It wasn’t a book I would read or recommend to anyone, but that doesn’t matter,” she said. In that case, the book remained on the shelf. She emphasized that the key is to follow the law, or the institution could be put at risk.
Sanders also opposed book banning. “I wouldn’t even know how to argue with someone about that,” she said. She referenced recent challenges in Texas and Florida targeting LGBTQ and trans characters, calling it “just not acceptable.”
Moore likewise objected to censorship but noted the reality that not all books can be purchased. She said books that “espouse hate or self-harm” should not be part of a public collection. However, she cautioned that it is the board’s duty to read the material and understand its content before making decisions about removal or exclusion. She also said the institution’s legal counsel should be consulted in such matters.
When asked about the role of the facility as a community space, all four candidates agreed on its importance. DiBetta described it as a “third space,” a place for critical conversations. Adams compared it to a coffee shop or a park—accessible in bad weather and free to the public. Sanders said that in the current economic climate, people need safe spaces more than ever. Moore agreed, but suggested prioritizing residents within the school district, who fund the facility through taxes, when space is limited.
After the question-and-answer portion, the candidates stayed to speak with voters one-on-one. The event, attended by about 40 people, was recorded and can be found—along with candidate profiles—on the organization’s website.
“I thought they did great,” Kirkpatrick said.
