Candidate Liz Sullivan Misled Public About Events at Lisle Library District Meeting

On February 23, Liz Sullivan published a fabricated account of the Lisle Library District (LLD) Board of Trustee’s February 22 Committee of the Whole meeting. Sullivan is one of five candidates vying for three spots on the LLD Board on April 4. Her article “Should I have placed the entire Lisle Library Board under citizen’s arrest?” was on the Lisle Patch Bulletin Board for about 10 days, and she sent a copy to every Trustee. The article has since been removed, but people are still asking me about it, and I want to set the record straight.

I’m a Lisle Library District Trustee. I was at the February 22 meeting, and witnessed Sullivan’s “performance” first-hand. I can guarantee that her February 23 article was full of false statements. It doesn’t surprise me. Even though she signed the state’s voluntary Code of Fair Campaign Practices, and pledged not to use campaign material that misrepresents, distorts, or otherwise falsifies facts, Sullivan’s campaign seems to consist mostly of malicious innuendo and outright lies designed to create mistrust of LLD Trustees and staff.

This is my personal rebuttal to Sullivan’s article, not an official statement from the Lisle Library District. I’ve worked hard for the past six years to ensure that tax dollars are used responsibly to provide a library that meets residents’ needs and contributes to our community. I’m up for re-election on April 4, and I’m tired of Sullivan’s appalling campaign practices. It’s time to expose her lies and set the record straight!

First false statement in Liz Sullivan’s article: She claimed the Lisle Library District violated the Open Meetings Act (OMA) by failing to give advance notice of the subject of the February 22 meeting.

This accusation is easily disproved. Public notice of the meeting was posted on the library’s website and on the bulletin board outside the library more than 48 hours before the meeting. The first sentence of the notice stated “A Committee of the Whole Meeting (budget discussion) of the Lisle Library District Board of Trustees will be held on February 22, 2017 at 7:00 pm in the Meeting Room of the Lisle Library District, 777 Front Street, Lisle, Illinois.” It included the following agenda:

1. Roll Call

2. Public Comment

3. FY 2017-18 Budget Discussion

4. Adjourn

A list of the budget items to be discussed was also posted on the website before the meeting. Sullivan’s claim that LLD violated OMA by failing to post the subject matter of the meeting in advance is obviously FALSE.

Second false statement in Liz Sullivan’s article: She claimed that members of the public weren’t given an opportunity to speak at the February 22 meeting.

This is another outrageous accusation: a public comment period was the second item on the agenda. What Sullivan failed to mention in her article is that she arrived late and missed that public comment period.

Board President Richard Flint convened the meeting at 7 pm, asked for a roll call, then asked if any members of the public wished to address the Board. Hearing no requests to speak, he moved to the third item on the agenda. By the time Sullivan arrived, the Board was already discussing the FY 2017-18 budget. Sullivan has spoken at other LLD Board meetings, and knows the opportunity for visitors to speak is generally the first item of business on the agenda.

Third false statement in Liz Sullivan’s article: She claimed that Board President Flint told her public comments were not allowed because it was a committee meeting.

As noted, Sullivan arrived late. She spent several minutes unwinding a power cord and plugging in her laptop, then took a seat. After several more minutes, she asked for permission to address the Board. Her February 23 article stated that her request was “summarily dismissed.” That’s not true. President Flint politely informed her that she’d missed the public comment period, and couldn’t speak because the Board had already started discussing the budget. He advised her to follow up with the Library Director regarding any questions or concerns. His response was consistent with the District’s Public Comment Policy, which states that visitors will have an opportunity to speak during the public comment portion of a meeting, but can’t speak during other parts of a meeting unless allowed by the chair. President Flint never told Sullivan she couldn’t speak because it was a committee meeting.

Big omission in Liz Sullivan’s article: She didn’t mention that she purposely broke the District’s Public Comment Policy, and also broke the Patron Code of Conduct Policy (both policies are on the library’s website).

The District’s Public Comment Policy states that anyone wishing to address the Board must display proper decorum and proper conduct at all times. Sullivan displayed a total lack of decorum and proper conduct on February 22.

She refused to accept that she’d missed the public comment period, and said she should still be allowed to speak because she wasn’t that late. She then proceeded to speak without permission. President Flint banged his gavel to signal that Sullivan was out of order, but she wouldn’t stop. The Board tried to continue its business, but couldn’t do so because she was ranting so loudly.

At this point, Sullivan was breaking the Patron Code of Conduct policy, which prohibits behavior that disturbs others, interferes with the rights of others to use the Library, or could be considered “harassment, intimidation, or threatening” to staff or patrons. Her agitated and erratic behavior was disturbing, and it’s highly likely that some people in the room felt threatened and intimidated by her aggressive conduct.

I asked President Flint if he should call a library monitor to escort Sullivan from the building. This is standard procedure when someone willfully violates library policies, or behaves in a way that represents a danger to themselves or others. It was certainly an appropriate response to Sullivan’s alarming behavior.

As soon as I mentioned calling a monitor, Sullivan said she would leave. Her February 23 article claimed that she left because she felt “physically threatened” by my suggestion. I think it’s more likely that Sullivan knew her behavior was unacceptable, and that per the Code of Conduct, we had every right to call both a monitor AND the police. She continued to rant as she stormed out of the room.

Why is Liz Sullivan campaigning this way?

It’s clear that Sullivan’s February 23 article was full of lies. I assume that's why it was removed from the Patch. Nevertheless, people are still asking questions about it, which is why I wrote this response.

The next thing voters should question is Liz Sullivan’s behavior as a candidate for the Lisle Library District Board of Trustees. Did Sullivan have any justification for her alarming performance at the February 22 meeting? Can there be any valid reasons for telling blatant lies about the meeting? Did she have any basis for claiming the entire LLD Board should be arrested? The answer to all three questions is “NO.” I think the real reason for her behavior is that she wanted to spew out more drama and false claims as part of her toxic campaign.

As Sullivan said at the end of her February 23 article, you be the judge.