Library News

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Regarding Benning Road Library

Superior Court of the District of Columbia
Civil Division


Plaintiffs
Rick Tingling-Clemmons (202)-397-2277
4614 Central Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20019

Betty Diggs (202)-388-3085
3716 Nash Street, SE, Washington, DC 20019

Dorothy Douglas (202)-396-6421
4401 Minnesota Ave., NE, Washington, DC 20019

Louise Gray (202)-399-8634
116 35th Street, NE, Washington, DC 20019

Cynthia Payne-Davis, (202)-398-2718
219 – 45th Street, NE, Washington, DC 20019

Eddie Rhodes (202)-396-2914
3909 Blaine Street, NE, Washington, DC 20019

Jane Zara, (202-483-9303)
1611 Monroe Street, NW, Washington, DC 20010

Community to Save Our Libraries (C-SOL) (202)-397-2277
c/o 4614 Central Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20019

v.


Defendants

Adrian Fenty, in his official capacity as
Mayor, District of Columbia
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004

Linda Singer
Attorney General
District of Columbia
441 4th Street, N.W., 6th Fl. South
Washington, D.C. 20001

John Hill, in his official capacity as
Chief Executive Officer, Federal City Council
President, Board of Library Trustees of the DC Public Library
1156 15th Street, NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20005

Ginnie Cooper, in her official capacity as
Chief Librarian of the DC Public Library
Martin Luther King Jr., Memorial Library
901 G Street, NW, 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20001

Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief

1. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Rule 65, Superior Court Civil Rules, for the purpose of determining whether the actions of the D.C. government, by and through the D.C. Library Board of Trustees, violated the Advisory Neighborhood Commission Act, D.C. Code §§ 1-309.10 et seq., the D.C. Environmental Policy Act, D.C. Public Law 8-36, D.C.M.R. Title 20, Chapter 72, D.C. Code Ann. § 6-901 et seq., D.C. Mun. Regs. Tit 20 § 7200 et seq. and D .C. Code § 10-801(b)(6)(b-1)(1)(2).

Plaintiffs, for their complaint herein, respectfully state as follows:

Jurisdiction

2. The jurisdiction of this Court is founded on D.C. Code § 11-921, the Advisory Neighborhood Commission Act, D.C. Code§§ 1-309.10 et seq., and the D.C. Administrative Procedure Act, D.C. Code §§ 2-501 through 2-562.

Parties

3. Plaintiff, Rick Tingling Clemmons is a natural person and is an area resident of Advisory Neighborhood Commission 7D and Commissioner of ANC Single Member District 7D05 that abuts the Benning Library, a resident of the Benning Library community, residing at 4614 Central Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20019.

4. Plaintiff, Betty Diggs, is a natural person, residing at 4716 Nash Street, SE, Washington, DC 20019, who has personally been harmed due to the closure of the Benning Library, the loss of library services, and the inadequacy of planned future library facilities to meet the needs of the community.

5. Plaintiff, Dorothy Douglas, is a natural person, residing at 4401 Minnesota Ave., NE, Washington, DC 20019, who has served and continues to serve as ANC SMD 7D03, and who has personally been harmed due to the closure of the Benning Library, the loss of library services, and the inadequacy of planned future library facilities to meet the needs of the community.

6. Plaintiff, Louise Gray, is a natural person, residing at 116 35th Street, NE, Washington, DC 20019, who served as former librarian and Chair, Library Emergency Committee, ANC 7A, who has suffered irreparable harm when the National Council of Negro Women lost its decades-old meeting space with the closing of the Benning Library.

7. Plaintiff, Cynthia Payne-Davis is a natural person, residing at 219 – 45th Street, NE, Washington, DC 20019, who has served as President, Central North East Civic Association, 45th Street, NE, Washington, DC 20019, and who has personally been harmed due to the closure of the Benning Library, the loss of library services, and the inadequacy of planned future library facilities to meet the needs of the community.

8. Plaintiff, Eddie Rhodes, is a natural person, area resident, and former Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner, Single Member District 7A06, residing at 3909 Blaine Street, NE, Washington, DC 20019 who for two (2) years (1992-1994) personally sponsored literacy efforts at Benning Library, bringing together low-literacy adults and college students who provided tutoring services; conducted most of his research at Benning Library and used its computers and was personally harmed with the closing of Benning Library and its loss of space for his tutoring program, instructing community residents with gravely needed literacy instruction.

9. Plaintiff, Jane Zara, is a natural person, area resident, member of Community to Save Our Libraries (“CSOL”), and is concerned about the library closures that have occurred in DC and that have led to the loss of access of the community library by her youngest daughter for after-school study.

10. Plaintiff, Community to Save Our Libraries (“CSOL”) is an unincorporated, non-profit membership organization, located at 4614 Central Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20019. Its reason for existence is to organize our community to save our libraries; specifically in the case of Benning, to demand that DCPL: remove the fence, restore the heating system, replace and augment the collection with more and relevant books, reengage staff including professional librarians, reconnect to the Internet, and reopen the library. Its members include residents of various parts of the city that are concerned about the fate and conditions of D.C. Public Libraries. Among its members are residents of the Benning Library community.

11. Each of the Plaintiffs is adversely affected and aggrieved by the actions of the District of Columbia government identified herein

12. Defendant, Adrian Fenty, is mayor of the District of Columbia.

13. Defendant, John Hill, is President of the Board of Library Trustees of the DC Public Library and Chief Executive Officer, Federal City Council.

14. Defendant, Ginnie Cooper, is Chief Librarian of the DC Public Library.

Factual and Legal Background:

15. The decision to demolish the Benning Neighborhood Library, which was closed in 2004, is plainly a permanent change in the use of property owned by the government and subject to notice requirements. Throughout the entire period of the Benning Library closure, from December 30, 2004 until this writing, no direct communication from DCPL concerning plans for the Benning Library has been received by either the residents of the Benning neighborhood, nor by individual attendees of the corresponding library focus groups, nor by the Friends of Benning Library, nor by any Advisory Neighborhood Commissioners.

16. It is not known how the DC Public Library Trustees or DCPL staff came to their decision to demolish the Benning Library, as opposed to renovating, refurbishing and expanding it, or any other possibility for its revitalization and transformation. There is no record of an engineering study, environmental impact study, cost comparisons between demolition and remodeling the existing structure, or other report detailing the options for renewing the Benning Library, as required by law.

17. D.C. law, specifically D .C. Code § 10-801(b)(6)(b-1)(1)(2), requires relevant government entities to describe the manner in which economic factors are weighted and evaluated, including estimates of the monetary benefits and costs to the District that will result from the change in the disposition of real property. Defendants, in their capacity as D.C. officials, have failed to comply with this law.

18. DC law, D.C. Code §§ 1-207.38 and 1-309.10(b), expressly provide that the affected ANC, as well as the ANC Commissioner in the affected Single Member District be given 30 days written notice of all “district government actions or proposed action, including … (2) the intent to change the use of property owned or leased by or behalf of the government.” Defendants, in their capacity as D.C. officials, have failed to comply with this law.

19. Notice requirements apply to “each executive agency, and all independent agencies, boards, and commissions,” including the D.C. Public Library and the Board of Library Trustees. Id. § 1-309.10(a). Defendants, in their capacity as D.C. officials, have failed to comply with this law.

20. The government entity must articulate specific findings and conclusions with respect to each issue and concern raised by the [ANC]. D.C. Code §§ 1-207.38(d) and 1-309.10(d)(3)(A) and (B). Defendants, in their capacity as D.C. officials, have failed to comply with this law.

21. The government entity is required to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that assesses the effects of the changes in the disposition of Benning Library. D.C. Code § 8-109.01 et seq. Defendants, in their capacity as D.C. officials, have not fulfilled their duties or met the statutory requirements with respect to requiring the issuance of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Benning Library project.

22. Defendants have breached their duty to use allotted funds for the benefit of the community of Benning Library.

23. Defendants are negligent in their failure to maintain the upkeep of the Benning Library, leading to the continued deterioration of the Benning Library facilities, and thereby contributing to the appearance of neglect through failure to remove trash, failure to clip grass, and otherwise maintain grounds in a manner appropriate to the wellbeing of neighborhood.

24. Defendants are negligent in their failure to provide the public with notice or information regarding the discovery of asbestos in the stripping of Benning Library preparatory to demolition in late May, and in exposing the public to potentially fatal asbestos contamination when debris from the library was dumped and left lying uncontained around the Benning Library

Benning Library History

25. The Benning Branch of the D.C. Public Library (DCPL) was erected at 3935 Benning Road, N.W. as the sixth in a series of branch libraries funded under the D.C. Public Works Program. The Benning Branch was located in the neighborhood east of the Anacostia River in the vicinity of Benning Road.

26. Known in the nineteenth century as Pleasant Grove, the area was settled by African Americans following the Civil War. It eventually came to be known as Benning Heights after an early area land owner William Benning, who helped finance the wooden bridge spanning the Anacostia River.

27. Several other branch projects took precedence over Benning Library, delaying its construction, but in 1961 Congress finally appropriated funds for its construction.

28. The structure constructed allows for future additions over the original building http://dclibrary.org/branches/ben/history.html.

29. Over the years, the Benning Library has played an important role in the community. Some programs undertaken by the library during its operation included a film series, an Annual Black History Contest, and an Annual Book Bag Giveaway.

30. Benning Library offered special collections including the A.V. Howard Black Reference Collection, materials focused on adult basic education, a career corner, and a Consumer Information Center.

31. Circulating approximately 23,000 books during 1996, the library offered expanded services that included special events and programs such as the Umoja Reading Club, pre-school films, and computer classes. The library also offered help in tax preparation for seniors, a meeting room for community groups and small rooms for tutoring.

32. In 2004, four branch libraries were selected to be rebuilt, Anacostia, Benning, Tenley, Watha T. Daniel/Shaw. Selection criteria are unknown due to a lack of transparency of meeting held by the Board of Library Trustees. This Board routinely met privately prior to board meetings for the purposes of gathering “consensus.”

33. It is unknown and unavailable to the public what, if any, reports of building conditions or assessments were reviewed in preparation for selecting these four libraries for closure.

34. Public input into the design and planning process for a new Benning Library was pro forma at best, with sign in sheets from three reported focus groups bearing the signatures of fewer than 10 members of the public who were not DCPL staff or consultants.

35. All four communities were ultimately presented with plans for libraries that would cost $4 million each, and which will be smaller than their current library buildings. The public was unhappy about the new plans. And, although the public was unhappy with the plans, they were given no other options, and no further time for developing new ones. Thus members of the community felt they were settling for less than they deserved, but that it was the best they could get under the circumstances, and with the limited information available to them. Moreover, many citizens were afraid that the money allocated for an improved Benning Library would be lost if they did not act swiftly to accept the only plans they were being offered.

36. In November, 2004, then-Mayor Anthony Williams appointed a Blue Ribbon Task Force on the Future of the Library to make recommendations to the Board of Library Trustees concerning system wide library “transformations.” Many questioned the appointment of the Task Force after plans for four libraries had already been completed. Benning residents, already less than satisfied with the plans for rebuilding their library, felt that they were being further shortchanged since their new libraries would not benefit from the findings or recommendations of the costly, publicly funded Task Force.

37. Despite reservations from the public about the new library designs, and without any input from the newly created Task Force, the Board of Library Trustees authorized closing four branch libraries, including Benning Library. The libraries were permanently closed on December 31, 2004, after being emptied of books, computers and furniture.

38. The relatively new boiler at Benning was removed for installation at the Washington Highlands Branch Library.

39. When these libraries were closed, no provision for interim services was yet available.

40. On January 17, 2005, then-Chairman of City Council, Linda Cropp, introduced Library Enhancement and Development legislation (LEAD Act) to set up a Library Trust Fund, separate from the city’s General Fund, to receive the revenues generated by sale or lease of library property or air rights, in order to help fund “transformation” of the library system. In addition, the legislation called for its own Task Force to develop a strategic plan to identify and recommend public-private partnerships to help pay for the system-wide transformation.

41. Throughout 2005, the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Libraries, supported by $750,000 in public monies allocated by the City Council, met in closed meetings, from which at least one member of the press who tried to gain entrance was physically ejected. The Task Force also busied itself with sending delegations around the country and abroad to investigate best practices for libraries.

42. Neither interim services nor construction occurred on the Benning Library site during this time span.

43. In October 2005, according to DCPL press release, plans for the four libraries to be rebuilt were cancelled by the Board of Library Trustees as “not good enough.” $3 million in design fees were eventually paid for plans that were not used. None of these expenditures brought any ostensible benefit to the Benning Library community.

44. The harm/cost to the public was never weighed against the huge amounts of public funding money already wasted by DCPL and others in the library “transformation” process, including $3 million to conduct focus groups and draw up plans that were canceled; $750,000 expended for activities and publications of the Blue Ribbon Task Force on the Future of the DC Library that have provided no benefit to the Benning Library community; $650,000 expended on a study by the Marshall Heights Community Development Organization concerning the feasibility of building affordable housing in the air rights over the library.

45. In January, 2006 City Council unanimously passed the LEAD Act. The Task Force mandated by the 2006 LEAD Act has never convened to date.

46. In January, 2006 the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Task Force finally produced a draft report on the future of DC libraries, at the request of Library Committee Chairman Kathy Patterson, more than a year after appointment of the Task Force.

47. Outcry over the lack of public consultation in drafting the report resulted in ten “Library Listening Sessions” being scheduled around the city. The sessions received widespread criticism for being manipulative and ineffective. The public repeatedly raised questions about the status of the flagship central library, the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial facility, but facilitators said the topic was closed. After the sessions were concluded, the President of Library Trustees, John Hill, announced that the draft report would be sent back to be rewritten, and would incorporate public comments and concerns.

48. Public hearings were called for by Chairman Kathy Patterson in April and May of 2006, when it was disclosed that then-Mayor Williams’ proposed Budget Act included authorization to lease the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Library for 99 years in order to “help finance” the building of a new central library on the old convention center site. Community activists and library supporters at the hearing called attention to the four neighborhood libraries that remained closed without any progress towards developing new plans for them.

49. In May, 2006, Interim Library Director Francis Buckley was dismissed.

50. Chief Librarian Ginnie Cooper was hired. Cooper’s contract is $1 million over five years.

51. In July, 2006, the Shaw community rallied at the closed Watha T. Daniel Library to call attention to the continuing lack of services. In a letter to the president of the Friends of the Watha T. Daniel Library, Alexander Padro, new chief librarian Ginnie Cooper says she would be rallying with them if she could.

52. In August, 2006, the community rallied at the closed Anacostia Library. Cooper attends the rally and unveils a new bookmobile, one of three to be added to those that will serve the closed libraries until interim buildings can be erected.

53. Also in August, 2006, Friends of the Library groups across the city erupted in anger when Trustee President John Hill announced that he had asked the duly elected President of the Federation of Friends of DCPL to step down from an ex officio position on the board of Library Trustees.

54. In September, 2006, at its Board meeting, Library Trustees announce participation in a study by the Marshall Heights Community Development Organization (MHCDO) to determine the feasibility of redevelopment of the Benning Library with multiple floors of affordable housing over it. At each of these three focus groups scheduled by MHCDO in September and October of 2006, the community was adamant in its opposition to building housing over a library and in its desire to prevent the development of mixed housing units above the library, fighting to prevent the loss of the air rights of Benning Library.

55. At a third and final hearing about a new central library, the DC Chief Financial Officer’s analysis of the cost comparison between a new library and a renovation of the architectural landmark was called into doubt.

56. On December 5, 2006 legislation for a new central library failed, with council members who voted against it repeatedly citing the Library’s failure to focus on the four neighborhood libraries that remained closed two years later.

57. In January, 2007, after a fourth focus group is held, Marshall Heights Community Development Organization announced it will not pursue the redevelopment of the Benning Library with housing.

58. Demolition of Benning Library is scheduled for June, 2007.

59. Plaintiffs and their members and beneficiaries have no adequate remedy at law for the violations of the D.C. government entities and Trustees as listed in paragraphs 1-58 above unless the Court acts to prevent such violations.

60. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-59 above.

Plaintiffs allege the following counts:

COUNT I

61. D.C. government entities and Trustees have violated D .C. Code § 10-801(b)(6)(b-1)(1)(2), which requires relevant government entities to describe the manner in which economic factors are weighted and evaluated, including estimates of the monetary benefits and costs to the District that will result from the change in the disposition of real property. Defendants, in their capacity as D.C. officials, have failed to provide any rationale, or economic analysis for demolishing Benning Library.

COUNT II

62. D.C. government entities and Trustees have violated D.C. Code § 1-309.10(a),(b) and (d)(3)(A) and (B), by failing to provide notice to the ANC, or to the ANC Commissioner in the affected Single Member District 30 days written notice of “district government actions or proposed action, including the intent to change the use of property owned or leased by or on behalf of the government.” Defendants, in their capacity as D.C. government entities or Trustees, have failed to comply with these laws.

COUNT III

63. D.C. government entities and Trustees have violated D.C. Code § 8-109.01 et seq by failing to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that assesses the effects of the changes in the disposition of Benning Library. Defendants, in their capacity as D.C. officials and Trustees have failed to comply with this law.

COUNT IV

64. D.C. government entities and Trustees are negligent in their failure to maintain the upkeep of the Benning Library, leading to the continued deterioration of the Benning Library facilities.

count v

65. D.C. government entities and Trustees continued failure to provide a process for incorporating public need and public input into the design and timely provision of adequate library services to the Benning Library community is a deprivation of due process under the Fifth Amendment, which provides that the government shall not deprive a person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. U.S. Const. amend. V; Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499-500, 98 L.Ed. 884 (1954).

relief sought:

66. Wherefore, Plaintiffs request that this Court enter judgment, including temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief against Defendant as follows:

67. Plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction requiring D.C. government entities and Trustees to stop plans for the demolition of Benning Library, and requiring Defendants to begin compliance with D.C. Code §§ 1-207.38(d), 1-309.10(b), 1-309.10(d)(3)(A) and (B), 8-109.01 et seq., and 10-801(a) and (b).

68. Plaintiffs are entitled to an order declaring the right to the protection of its public property from harmful neglect.

69. Plaintiffs are entitled to the right of equal access to their community library resources and the right to due process in protecting their community property interests.

70. Plaintiffs are entitled to a full abatement of asbestos found in the stripping of the library fixtures in preparation for demolition, proper warning of the presence of hazardous material to the community, and proof that such abatement has taken place.

71. Plaintiffs are entitled to an order declaring the right to participate in and to determine the use and disposition of its public properties, including its public library facilities.

72. Awarding any and all other relief the Court deems just and equitable.