What if there IS no defined process? Still willing to munch felt?
(On edit: that sounds dirtier than I meant it.) 
You are right, and we also need Palin to make a statement. But the quote was not from the librarian, note, it was from an admitted political foe of Palin.
Unfortunately, a quote from either persons after this many years is mostly useless. What I’d like to see is Minutes or a Memo or email or something, but apparently the request was rather offhand, if not 'rhetoricl".
Again, a librarian is not a political position. “Cleaning house” and firing political opponents does not apply to the library. Please try again.
In the absence of a defined process I would think it devolves to the librarian who is the trained expert.
That said I would bet if somehow there was no process defined a trained librarian with a masters degree would write a process upon taking the job. Lacking that I’d also suspect there are overarching Society of Librarian principles and ethics (made that up but something like that) which spell out preferred processes to be adopted. This of course assumes the state hasn’t long ago created such a process (one would think they got around to it sometime).
If you have a Masters degree in library science I bet it includes more than a 6 year class on the Dewey Decimal System and probably covers things such as this. 
This may belong the the “little things” thread that seems to have died, but it drives me nuts that she uses rhetorical as a synonym (apparently) for ‘in passing’. A rhetorical question is one for which the answer is so obvious that it can and should be assumed without being verbalized. The question about the blow job from the vice officer was an extremely effective rhetorical question (as well as causing me to spew coffee on the keyboard) There’s no way that I can frame Palin’s question to make it rhetorical. Borderline rhetorical would be “Does Palin’s attitude towards controlling the contents of her local library raise questions about her willingness to disregard constitutional guarantees if she should be in the White House?”
ED: closed parentheses
Your repeated assertions on this point are wrong.
The fact that the mayor had the power to dismiss the librarian (if, in fact, she did, which presumably she did since she tried to; if she didn’t, you need to offer evidence that she didn’t) shows that the position was “political” in nature, that is, part of the spoils.
If the librarian was appointed by the mayor, but the mayor was unable to dismiss the librarian for other than cause, then your position would be correct. But that does not appear to be the case here, for whatever reason.
This does not mean that what Gov. Palin did was morally correct, or politically correct, or “right” from the standpoint of deciding if she is or is not a power-hungry politician who shouldn’t be let within fifty miles of a cookie jar, let alone the nuclear firing codes. But from a legal standpoint, absent evidence to the contrary about her lack of power to dismiss the librarian, your assertion is incorrect.
So which is it?
Alright then, let’s say it was specific books. Unless it was flat out illegal (such as kiddie porn) or pornography under the Miller test, then there is no legitimate reason to eject it from the public library.
And why am I reasonably certain that it wasn’t kiddie porn or pornography? Because in that case, the stories would have mentioned that it was kiddie porn or pornography, not “some books.” And Palin’s explanation would not have been that it was “merely rhetorical.” She would have said that she was trying to remove illegal material or pornography from the library.
There are a thousand stupid little reasons why people don’t like each other in small towns (or anywhere for that matter), and I can understand (not necessarily condone) an overzealous, newly-appointed mayor’s desire to get rid of someone she doesn’t like. It’s very possible that the librarian was going to be fired because Palin didn’t like her for some other reason, but the fact is that the “political opponent” story didn’t fly with the town, and no other reason, other than the book banning issue has been given.
Frankly, I think whatever damage is already done. The story that she cleaned house and fired (or tried to fire) upteen people (even the librarian!) is out there and it does not paint her in a good light. That’s all anyone who wants to hate her needs to know.
Perhaps it is in that town. However- a librarian can’t be an outspoken Political critic of the Mayor, such a thing is impossible? That would not make the position of librarian political, that woudl make the Librarian herself politcal.
Or more likely “hypothetical” is a better term. However, we don’t know exactly what Palin said, either.
BUt someone has to make a call on which books. Given limited space—very limited space in a small town library—the vast majority of books in publication will have to be omitted for the inclusion of others. Who should make that call. Is there some hypothetical Fair Judge of Ideology and Quality we can summon? Barring that, who should make that call? Palin aside, shouldn’t it be up to the community itself. Can you suggest another system that would be more fair?
However, the public firestorm that forced Palin to back down was set off and fueled by people separated from the events by days or weeks, not years. That suggests that whatever facts have vanished into the sea of time are, on balance, unfavorable to Palin.
Is it usual for small town mayors to sack everyone they can when taking office because they worked under the previous mayor?
Honestly asking…I do not know what is “normal” in such cases. I still think the librarian would be off limits. Even if it is a mayoral appointment how many people have a Masters in Library Science for the mayor to throw to a crony? Heck, are there lots of people with such a degree living in Wasilla hoping for their chance at a job there? How about all of Alaska?
Whatever the case a librarian seems a particularly apolitical job. Odd to be part of the spoils of an election and odder still any incoming mayor would care.
I don’t think it was either kiddy porn or specific books. My personal WAG is that Palin the Mom had found some items in the library which Palin the Mom thought her kids should not have access to. Once reminded that she was actually asking as Palin the Mayor she dropped it (which indeed it was dropped)
There are items in my public library that I -as a parent- feel my kids should not look at. However, when I think about asking that they be removed I remember that the library serves more than parents and small children.
For example, there is much controversy in San Jose about the San Jose Public Libraries installing some sort of porn filters on the computers. As a Parent, I certainly don’t want my kids looking at porn. But as a Voter and Citizen, I am against filters.
I hope every Parent and Citizen has similar thoughts, concerns and opinions.
But someone has to make a call on which books. Given limited space—very limited space in a small town library—the vast majority of books in publication will have to be omitted for the inclusion of others. Who should make that call. Is there some hypothetical Fair Judge of Ideology and Quality we can summon? Barring that, who should make that call? Palin aside, shouldn’t it be up to the community itself. Can you suggest another system that would be more fair?
Public Firestorm?:dubious:
So what? Librarians aren’t allowed to express their political opinions?
http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/510219.html
It appears Palin was in her rights to fire the librarian, however it looks like the librarian and the police chief were the only people to receive these letters. And it also seems that they both “supported” Palin’s opponent. The letter seals the deal that this was politicial:
So while I acknowledge that Palin had the legal right to do what she did, the outcry of the town proves that she was sticking her nose in a place it didn’t belong.
Good cite. From that "*While both Stambaugh and Emmons serve at the mayor’s pleasure, Stambaugh said he has a contract that prohibits the city from firing him without cause.
Both Stambaugh and Emmons publicly supported Palin’s opponent, long-time mayor John Stein during the campaign last fall. When she was elected, Palin questioned their loyalty and initially asked for their resignations. But Stambaugh said he thought any questions had been resolved.
Stambaugh has headed the Wasilla Police Department since it was created in 1993. Before that, he worked 22 years with Anchorage Police Department, rising to the rank of captain before retiring.
Emmons, who has been the city’s library director for seven years, would not comment about the affair."*
So, she wasn’t a Librarian per se, she was the Director of that Dept. A political position.
Apparently the proposed firing of the Director was mostly about merging the Library and Museum “Palin said she asked Emmons if she would support efforts to merge the library and museum operations. Emmons said she would, according to Palin.” It had nothing to do with book bannings. “Palin said Friday she now feels Emmons supports her but does not feel the same about Stambaugh. As to what prompted the change, Palin said she now has Emmons’ assurance that she is behind her. She refused to give details about how Stambaugh has not supported her, saying only that ‘‘You know in your heart when someone is supportive of you.’’”
I don’t know if it’s normal; probably not. My point was that I can imagine someone getting into a position of power for the first time and abusing it in such a way. Obviously it was a bone-headed move on her part, but making a stupid decision doesn’t always have a good reason.