The board of the public library of Hampton Bays, one of the 16 communities in Southampton, has decided not to stock any of the materials on the eruv dispute that have been assembled by odwyerpr.com.

The trustees, meeting for two hours last night, voted unanimously not to keep on its premises any of the 300+ pages of materials on the eruv dispute that have been assembled by this website over the past few months.

Reasons given at the meeting were that the library did not want to get on one side of a “fight” and that keeping on file legal and other documents in the eruv battle would open it to similar demands from others promoting various issues.

The Rogers Memorial Library of Southampton, offered the same packet of materials, accepted 11 of the 20 legal papers and articles, eliminating any articles by the O’Dwyer Co., the Southampton Press and its online version, 27east.com.

Susman Opinon Accepted by SH

Accepted was the 34-page opinion of UCLA Law Prof. Alexandra Susman in which she argues that eruvim that use public property are unconstitutional.

“meeting”Hampton Bays library board meeting. Left picture: VP Madeline O'Keefe at center and trustee David Zimmerman in white shirt. Right picture, O'Keefe, treasurer Regina Carpenter, president Rosemarie King, trustee Anne Wilding, and director Susan LaVista.

Also accepted was the 27-page Jan. 13, 2011 lawsuit of the East End Eruv Assn. accusing Westhampton Beach and its officials of “unlawfully” preventing plaintiffs “from establishing an Eruv by taking the unsupportable and incorrect positions in official communications to Verizon New York and Long Island Power Authority that local laws prohibit the establishment of the Eruv and that, in any event, village approval is required for such an undertaking…”

The suit, naming 14 individuals personally as well as in their official capacities, seeks “compensatory and punitive damages and attorney’s fees” to be determined in a trial.

The defendants are accused of engaging in “discriminatory practices” and a “conspiracy to interfere with plaintiffs’ Constitutional an civic rights” and tortiously interfering with plaintiffs’ contracts.

Alleged Library Headline Rankles Board

Library director Susan LaVista said the board was especially put off by a headline on an O'Dwyer story that allegedly said libraries are taking a stand on this issue. She said the role of libraries is to be neutral.

There was no such headlne. Headlines on stories involving libraries included “Hamptons Libraries to Hear Eruv Issue,” “Libraries Pitched Eruv Story,” “Spunky Libraries Host ‘Hot’ Topics (But Not in Hamptons)” and “Southampton Library to Accept O’Dwyer Eruv Materials.”

We did not advocate that libraries take a stand on this issue—only that they have a public display of materials on it and host public discussions on it. Hampton towns and Jewish People Opposed to the Eruv have already spent more than $1 million fighting this specious, frivolous litigation in endless "pre-trials" and face millions in penalties and court costs if they lose. Citizens are being unfairly branded as anti-Semites who block seniors from using wheelchairs and mothers from taking their small children to synagogue.

Tenafly, N.J., had to pay $325,000 in court costs and penalties when it lost an eruv battle in the Appeals Court stage after winning in the Federal District Court. The winning law firm was Weil Gotshal & Manges, the same law firm conducting the litigation against the Hampton towns.

The American Library Assn., aware that technology has made it far easier to research topics on the web rather than in a library, is advocating a new role for libraries as forums for controversial topics.

Library Ruling Being Appealed

We told LaVista that, as provided by the legal process, we are appealing the decision of the board to reject all materials supplied by O’Dwyer’s. She agreed we have the right to press our case and seek a different decision.

Direct contact with any of the board members is not possible either via emails, phones or addresses. The only contact is via LaVista who has been asked to forward materials to the directors. She said she would ask board president Rosemarie King to call us.

Materials will be sent to LaVista with the hope that all of them will be sent to the directors and that they will read them.

LaVista said that as required by law, no further decisions on this matter can be made until the next physical board meeting which is April 7. She said it would be illegal for the trustees to meet by telephone and make a decision.