Monday, March 9, 2026

Putting the library on the hot spot

By Gretchen Garrity

At their Feb. 24, 2026 meeting the Christian County Library Board of Trustees voted down a motion to limit mobile hot spots to one for each library branch. Treasurer John Garrity* began looking into mobile hot spots at the library when he saw the annual cost for them, anywhere from over $20,000 annually to the current cost of around $18,000.  

There are 45 mobile hotspot devices, according to the library's Feb. 21, 2026 Verizon billing record. Six are not being assessed charges for whatever reason and seven have charges although there is zero data usage. One hotspot is designated as a staff device.

The Board packet (which you can access HERE) beginning on page 25, details information the treasurer shared with other board members four weeks before the meeting, as well as library staff’s executive summary beginning on page 29.

Public comments included arguments both for and against the mobile hotspots. The video below should be prompted to just after the 9-minute mark. After the speakers are finished, there is discussion surrounding the mobile hot spots. Please note the speaker in favor of the hotspots owns her own home, owns at least two smartphones between family members, runs a business out of her home and widely travels the state.


According to the library staff's summary there were 329 total checkouts of mobile hot spots last year (334 if you go by the 2025 annual report). Hot spots are checked out at four-week intervals. If you divide the 329 checkouts by 12 that comes out to about 27.4 checkouts per month. The library's online checkout shows 34 devices available for checkout. Taking into consideration the nearly $20,000 it takes to maintain and pay for the hotspots, that means each hotspot is costing the library about $480 per year. 

In a county of 96,000 citizens the library's mobile hot spots are serving a mere .348% of the population, some of whom may be library staff. Less than half of one percent of Christian County citizens are receiving free internet at a cost of almost $20,000 annually for taxpayers. If you figure that, like the speaker, some mobile hotspots are being rotated in one household through two or more library cardholders, that means the number of individual households served is even less. 

As mentioned earlier, there are currently seven devices the library owns that are using zero data. They may be broken, stolen, lost, or misplaced, yet the library continues to pay monthly fees for them. This was noted in the Feb. 24 meeting.  I believe the staff is researching this issue.

And, according to an employee assignment record I obtained through a sunshine request, there were three hotspots checked out to employees for remote work in 2020 and 2021 during the Covid time. From the record it appears they have not been checked back in, though the employee record may not have been updated. The equipment descriptions do not fit the monthly invoice designations, making it impossible to determine if these hotspots are currently in use. The latest February Verizon bill notes a $40.01 hotspot charge for "Christian Co Staff 3" with usage of .506GB. Usage for that staff hotspot in the months of January and December include 1.302GB and 1.501GB respectively.

I also made a sunshine request to the Library, asking how many unique users requested the mobile hotspots for a several-month time frame. The Library responded by saying they would have to create a new record to give me that information, and therefore the request was denied on legal grounds.** Board Vice President Kelli Roberts also asked that question of Executive Director Will Blydenburgh at the Feb. 24 meeting. It was not the first time that question has been asked. The extremely limited reach of these mobile hotspots is a major equity and accessibility issue, as other libraries have noted.

The Grand Rapids, Michigan Public Library system, with an annual budget of $15.5 million is phasing out their mobile hot spots. They will be allocating the funds elsewhere. According to the article, "'Despite the large financial investment, the reach of the collection is very limited,' Library Director of Marketing and Communications Katie Zychowski wrote in an email to News 8."

The Grand Rapids library also noted how many unique checkouts they had in 2025. "During fiscal year 2025, the hot spots were checked out 869 times to 490 people. GRPL calculated an average yearly cost of about $183 per user." The Michigan library openly shared the number of unique users. They clearly saw the financial implication and equity issues.

Rotating checkouts in one household is a problem in libraries, as you can see in the following conversation on Reddit titled “Hotspots are our nightmare”:

The conversation on Reddit roams widely on the problems of providing free mobile hotspots to patrons. What was not thoroughly discussed in the meeting was the use of filters on the mobile hotspots. Note the following from the Reddit conversation:

The CCL does not have filters on the mobile hotspots, which means the library has no control over the usage of their electronic devices once checked out. The mobile hotspots were only recently moved to the Library of Things and limited to adult checkout. Depending on which organization is tracking internet usage, from 10-30% of all internet usage can be attributed to viewing porn. Additionally, these unfiltered hotspots could be used for any number of criminal activities.

Let's next address the apparent need that mobile hotspots serve in rural areas and for low-income citizens. The  staff-compiled summary listed several reasons that hotspots should be continued.

They noted the rural nature of parts of Christian County, with broadband service being limited (though it is being rapidly expanded). It is useful to note that cell phone towers are also being quickly erected, and that most areas of our county have 100% or close to coverage of either fixed or mobile broadband. As indicated in the treasurer's report, the need for pandemic-era mobile hotspots for rural areas has passed for the following reasons:

  • Pandemic policies are no longer in effect
  • All four library branches are open and provide free wi-fi
  • Almost universal smartphone market penetration (91% of adult ownership nationwide)
  • Virtually 100% of smartphones include hotspot hardware as a native feature
  • Free wi-fi in Christian County is widely available at restaurants and retail shops, and is more reliable than mobile hotspots. If your phone's wi-fi goes down, so does the mobile hotspots.
  • 5G is widely available in the county's major hubs, and is improving in rural areas through state-funded grants. Several 5G radio towers are slated for completion in early 2026 to eliminate any remaining dead zones.
  • There are several government and low-income internet assistance programs for the truly needy, and many of the major providers also offer programs to assist customers with different options.

To summarize some of the issues:

  • Major equity and accessibility issues for taxpaying Christian County residents. Mobile hotspots serve less than one half a percent of citizens in Christian County.   
  • If the library attempted to provide mobile hotspots strictly for residents below the poverty line,  only 4% (about 8,000 in poverty in CC) of the truly needy would have access to the library's mobile hotspots if all of the checkouts are those in poverty and are the same number served in 2025. 
  • Residents in under-served areas are fast approaching full coverage for internet service through expanded broadband programs, new cell towers, as well as satellite internet.
  • The number of actual served citizens is less if one takes into account the common situation that some households check out hotspots on a rotating basis, thus cutting equal access even further.
  • The annual cost to maintain mobile hotspots is nearly $20,000, which breaks down to about $480 per device per year.
  • None of the mobile hotspots at the CCL include internet filtering.
  • Seven of the devices are costing the library monthly charges, but are seemingly unaccounted for and showing no data usage.
  • Additionally, from the employee assignment sheet, it looks as if three mobile hotspots were checked out to the Christian County Healthy Department on Dec. 17 (there is no year noted), but have not been marked as returned.

The question really comes down to the library's financial focus and overall mission. 

  • Should a library's focus include providing free internet service in homes?
  • Is it financially feasible? 
  • Can taxpayer funds be better utilized elsewhere in the library? 
  • Are all library patrons being served equitably?

Since public libraries such as the St. Louis and Grand Rapids libraries are phasing out the Covid-era mobile hotspots, this issue should be revisited at the Christian County Library. Providing free internet to an extremely limited number of citizens may not be the best use of library funds, especially when there is a diminishing need. 

 The library board has financial and ethical responsibilities on behalf of all citizens of Christian County who are served by the library district. The library cannot be "all things to all people," but it can provide excellent library services that reach as many people as possible with the taxpayer funding provided to it.


___________________________________________________________________________________

*I am married to John Garrity.

**It is questionable whether the library can refuse to provide extracted information from an existing record. 

According to AI (GROK):

"[U]nder Missouri's Sunshine Law (Chapter 610, RSMo), requesting certain data extracted or pulled from existing records is generally not considered "generating a new record" that the public governmental body is required to create from scratch. The law requires agencies to provide access to existing public records but does not obligate them to create entirely new records that do not already exist.Key points from the law, court decisions, and related guidance:

  • The Sunshine Law mandates that public governmental bodies provide access to and copies of existing public records (as defined in § 610.010(6), RSMo, which includes records retained by or for the body, whether written or electronic).
  • Public bodies are not required to create new records in response to a request. This principle is clearly stated in Missouri case law, such as Jones v. Jackson County Circuit Court (162 S.W.3d 53, Mo. App. W.D. 2005), where the court held that the law "does not require a government body to create a new record upon request, but only to provide access to existing records held or maintained by the public governmental body."
  • Similar guidance appears in summaries from the Missouri Attorney General's Office and other official resources, emphasizing that agencies must grant access to what they already have but are not compelled to compile or generate new documents solely for the requester.
    However, there are practical nuances, especially with modern electronic records:
    • If the requested data can be easily extracted or generated from an existing database or computer system (e.g., running a simple query or report that pulls information already stored), some interpretations argue it may qualify as an "existing record" rather than creating something new. For example, legal analysis from sources like Spencer Fane (discussing governmental hospitals) notes that if a spreadsheet or output "could easily [be] generated from existing records in the database," there is "at least an argument" that it counts as an existing record, particularly if producing redacted originals would be more burdensome.
    • In such cases, agencies often produce the extracted data as the most straightforward way to comply, especially when it's low-effort and promotes transparency (the law is to be liberally construed in favor of openness per § 610.011).
      • If the request requires substantial new compilation, analysis, summarization, or creation of a novel document (e.g., a custom report requiring significant manual effort or new calculations), agencies can generally decline to create it and instead offer access to the underlying raw records.
      Agencies can charge reasonable fees for research time, search, and duplication (§ 610.026), which may cover the effort to pull data from databases.For the most accurate application to a specific request, review the exact wording of your request and consider consulting the agency's custodian of records, or—if denied—the Missouri Attorney General's Office (which handles Sunshine Law complaints). The full text of Chapter 610 is available on the Missouri Revisor of Statutes website for reference."
       

Tuesday, March 3, 2026

Toxic Empathy is a Thing

 

Monday, March 2, 2026

Revisting the transgender books on our library shelves

 By Gretchen Garrity

From the article referenced:

"In a historic and groundbreaking ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court today granted the Thomas More Society’s emergency application in Mirabelli v. Bonta, holding that secret gender transition policies in schools violate the religious liberty and due process rights of parents. The ruling restores the class action injunction that Thomas More Society had secured against the State of California for parents across the state who object to the state’s directives requiring schools to conceal children’s gender transitions from their own parents, facilitate those transitions without parental knowledge or consent, and compel teachers to actively deceive families.

The landmark 6-3 decision is the most significant parental rights ruling in a generation. The Court found that California’s secret transition regime likely violates parents’ rights under both the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, holding that the state “cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interests: their parents.”

Below are some of the books STILL ACCESSIBLE TO CHILDREN IN OUR LIBRARY. Why are they not relocated? At the behest of Christian County taxpayers, our county commissioners appointed board members whose focus was protecting children and making sexually explicit and age-inappropriate books accessible only to the adults in their lives.

Why, after months of discussion and a new executive director, is there not a collection policy for children and teens? Why would a policy need to be implemented on an "incremental" basis? What possible reason could there be to delay providing a policy that would help the library make informed decisions on books for our children? Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, to quote Shakespeare's Hamlet.

Sunday, March 1, 2026

Dystopian Truth

From: Hollywood Reporter
 When you are faced with the reality of what is happening in our state and nation, it is intolerable to be a pro-life incrementalist. Voting for the 2026 Amendment 3 is not the solution. Click through to read the whole tweet. Soylent Green level horror:

SJR72 (Senate Joint Resolution) will be heard in our legislature on Monday at 1p.m., Senate Hearing Room 1.  Witness forms can be filled out and submitted here:

https://www.libertytools.org/LibertyTools/witness/witness2.php?template=139

SJR 72 is a constitutional amendment that should be on our ballot in November. There is no reason why it cannot go forth with the execrable Amendment 3 so voters can vote on both. SJR72 states in part:

"That the term "person" under this constitution includes every human being with a unique DNA code regardless of age, including every in utero human child at every stage of biological development from the moment of conception until birth."


Saturday, February 28, 2026

Incrementalists are Inconsistent

 

This is a highly worthwhile essay. Very short, but it addresses the inconsistencies that "pro-life" advocates have accepted into their value system over the decades. This is another argument against incrementalism. Incrementalists are consistently worn down over time and begin to compromise.

Republicans in both the Christian County Missouri Republican Assembly (MRA) and the Christian County Republican Central Committee (CCRCC), as well as organizations like Missouri Right to Life and Freedom Principle Missouri, have all compromised on a consistent value system that would uphold the equal protection bills in our legislature. They are lukewarm.

Our elected representatives have been influenced to do the same. No one has the right to murder a human being. No one. The pro-life movement is morally atomized. In order to succeed at saving babies, they must do the work of coming together with a morally cohesive platform and end the infighting.

The abolitionist movement is not going away. It is growing. It is morally consistent. It is hated because the world hates truth. Pro-life individuals and groups must learn to love the truth again. The lives of countless children are at stake.

Abortion is murder. Women who abort their children have committed murder. Doctors who perform abortions are murderers.

Our legislature must pass personhood and equal protection legislation.

Sen. Moon's Personhood Bill to be Heard...

 

Thursday, February 26, 2026

Get that home library started!

 

Wednesday, February 25, 2026

I wonder how libraries could help...

 

Library Derangement Syndrome

How menopausal do you have to be to post something like this--over a discussion of taxpayer funding for services? A little background on the play referenced in the screenshot.

For the Taxpayer

 

Last year, about $24,000 of taxpayer funding for the library provided free mobile hot spots to library patrons. The program was instituted in the library in June 2019. In 2020 the Library added 21 mobile hot spots from a program administered by the state. That funding has since ended. The St. Louis Public Library details how they are phasing out the hot spots due to loss of funding. 

At one point, the Christian County Library had 45 mobile hot spots, but seem to have just under 40 devices now.

At the Feb. 24, 2026 meeting, mobile hot spots were discussed. A great deal of information was shared regarding the usage and cost of these hot spots, both pro and con. The video of the meeting, when it comes out, should be of interest to citizens. I will post it, along with other information. In the meantime, I am requesting more information, as noted below.

Custodian of Records
Christian County Library
Via email: sunshine@christiancountylibrary.org

February 25, 2026

This is a request for records under the Missouri Sunshine Law, Chapter 610, Revised Statutes of Missouri. I request that you make available to me records pertaining to the following information regarding the library's mobile hot spots and related services:

  1. Without exposing any personally identifiable information (PII), please provide the number of unique users who have checked out mobile hot spots in the last four months (from October 1, 2025, to February 1, 2026).

  1. Of the total number of Verizon billable line items, please provide the breakdown of how many are cell phones and how many are mobile hot spots. Please provide copies of the Nov. 2025, Dec. 2025, Jan. 2026, and Feb. 2026 Verizon invoices, restricted to "Overview of Lines" pages 1-5, that detail this information.

  2. Regarding the status of the seven mobile hot spots mentioned at the Feb. 24, 2026 Board meeting, please provide an explanation for why the Library District pays for mobile hot spots that are not being utilized and have zero data usage. 

  3. Whether any of the mobile hot spots are issued to staff members for work-from-home: please provide any policies, assignment records, or memos that address this.

  4. Whether the library changes passwords on mobile hot spots each time they are checked out: please provide any policies that describe the checkout process for these devices as related to passwords.

  5. Whether an internet filter is installed on the mobile hot spots: please provide any policies related to content filtering on these devices.

If any portion of the requested records is closed under the Sunshine Law, please provide the open portions and cite the specific statutory exemption for any redactions or withholdings.

Please provide these records in electronic format via email. I would like to inspect the records if electronic copies are not feasible. Please inform me in advance if the cost of fulfilling this request exceeds $25. If the cost will be higher, please provide a detailed estimate before proceeding.

If you deny any part of this request, please provide a written explanation for the denial, including a reference to the specific statutory exemption(s) authorizing the withholding of the record and a brief explanation of how the exemption applies to the record withheld.

Thank you for your assistance. I look forward to your response within three business days, as required by law.

Thank you kindly.