Kavanagh

She EDITED FOR LEGAL REASONS -- TYEE MODERATOR
She should be fired or silenced. A public library is no place to tell people where their corprate loyalties should be.

I'd tell her to stuff it if I worked there.

Conductor274

Hmm. You actually believe that stuff eh? Did you notice that it comes from a guy and his website that include such, um, news stories as "Infrared Light Helmet Reduces Alzheimers Disease in Senior Patient" and "Dog's Barks Translated in Human Language by Clever Computer Scientists" and "No Way to Hide the Truth: Cell Phone Does Cause Tumor".

Not exactly a fount of reliable, let alone even plausible information.

SicPreFix

In all fairness to Conductor274, the rest of that site may contain some highly dubious claims, but the ammonia story is very real, and was first reported in the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/us/31meat.html?_r=1&hp

Kevin ..

Thanks for the link. I stand at least partially corrected -- I'll have to research this rather ugly story I think.

Ugh!

BAARRRFFFF, I do not eat Mcdonalds Mexican hamburger meat and I do not eat garbage like McDonalds or Coke. I eat at Wendys and drink Pepsi.....and shall continue. Only Canadian Grade A beef for me. What's Campbell the dictator going to drink....booz or Coke...that should be interesting since he is now addicted to diet Pepsi last I heard. Withdrawals?? Yup, I may even have my hp laptop with me.

Make that another gold for Vancouver/Canada

Number 1 in the world for organized crime PER CAPITA too (so I hear!)..... Way to go B.C. Liberal Party.....as in GGGOOOOO N-O-W.

This is truly pathetic

But then, what would one expect from a manager of marketing and communications like Jean Kavanagh.

Flak from a flake, it seems unlikely Kavanagh is actually a librarian so why be too concerned. Like the bumpf from the Premier's Office, this stuff is better just shuffled off into the trash bin.

In fact, here's Kavanagh's bio

She joined Vancouver Public Library in June 2007 having held senior communications positions in the government and non-profit sectors. Prior to her communications work, Jean was a reporter in Vancouver, Toronto and abroad.

Pretty much par for the course I'd say.

A reporter, eh?

Well, using my handy-dandy VPL card I logged on to the Library's website and went to Canadian Newstand and did a search for "Jean Kavanagh". Lots of stuff, but this letter to editor from July 25, 2001 caught my eye:

"Rather than try to deal with all of Laura Jones's spurious logic, I will address what I considered her most offensive statement: "Who cares most about environmental problems? It's not the poorest, it's the richest. When you're wealthy enough, you can afford to care about the environment" (Auction off the grizzlies, Insight, July 21).

If Ms. Jones is equating buying power with the ability to care for the world around us, then perhaps she is right. The callousness, however, of her statement is unnerving and almost incomprehensible.

Has she never heard about the many examples of economically poor people, including many First Nations, leading successful environmental campaigns? Many examples in India come to mind, and the Cree in Quebec showed how much they cared about the environment in the 1970s and 1980s fighting Hydro Quebec.

In El Salvador, I once kept vigil with peasant farmers who were awaiting the army to throw them off their land -- or worse. The land was to be stripped of its vegetation, including coffee bushes, to build factories. These farmers depended on the coffee harvest for their living, but they also told me how important it was to retain the little remaining vegetation and forest in El Salvador in order to have clean water and unpolluted air for themselves and in the future. They understood nature very well and cared deeply enough to put their lives on the line.

Jean Kavanagh

Vancouver"

What a villain.

Jean Kavanagh

You'll also find, if you look hard enough, that the good Ms Kavanagh has also written flak for the government and the David Suzuki Foundation.

She may find Laura Jones's logic a little spurious but I think her own record is a bit mixed as well...wouldn't you like to know exactly how she justifies her promotion of companies like McDonald's and Panasonic - just because, I guess, the rich folks behind those companies have paid Vanoc a pile of cash.

Not once did she justify her actions in this matter - in fact, quite the contrary.

And in terms not all that different from the rhetoric those El Salvadoran officers likely used against her beloved peasants.

But you're right spartikus, she's no villain - she's just a PR flak...

I'm curious...

...just how many events are we talking about here?

Heaven only knows spartikus - it doesn't really matter

The number of events is really unimportant - it's the principle, the attitude and the lack of understanding of what she is asking that are critical.

And Ms. Kavanagh apparently isn't talking.

Not that I'm surprised - If I'd written that execrable memo I'd want to keep my profile pretty low too.

The policy she's promoting is bizarre and inchoate at best: There is absolutely no reason why the library shouldn't accept sponsorships (given the 90% cutback in government funding for cultural purposes in this province) from any source willing to provide it with no strings attached. The situation is appalling bad already.

The notion that a public institution should impose upon itself this kind of censorship is appalling and bizarre.

I do hope Ms Kavanagh takes a moment to read your post (and her own letter from 2001). The disconnect and the apparent hypocrisy, in light of her current actions, should give even her a moment's pause.

You think?

It was a trick question

I know the answer. It's one. But I'll return to that in a minute...

There's been one thing missing from many of the news articles about this my angry librarian friends have forwarded me: the actual memo. In my long, 10+ years experience of participating on political blogs (and email groups before that) I've learned it's vital to "follow the links" until you get to the primary document to see if it's being described accurately and fairly. Fortunately, the actual memo was posted on the B.C. Librarians Association website:

http://bclaifc.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/olympicsdosdonts.doc

I would like to compare this passage Mr. Dembicki wrote: "The guidelines apply mainly to highly visible gatherings with 30 or more people."

With the first bullet point of the memo: "For any 2010-related public program or event where the link to the Games is significant, ensure all equipment/goods meets VANOC’s sponsorship brand requirements for things like food, clothing, merchandise."

Ah, so it's only Olympic related events, not all events as many people seem to think here. This seems a bit of a key point that was not mentioned in Mr. Dembicki's article. So returning to the point above, yes it is important to determine "how many" Olympic related events the Library has participated in to see if this is, you know, a serious issue worthy of the 2 minute hate and my participation in it. The Library's website has an Events page, and I've duly scoured upcoming events. None are Olympic related and, as someone noted with bitterness above, there are no events during the actual Olympics (please choose one thing to be outraged about - either the events are sponsored by the Olymypics or there's no events during the Olympics). Okay, what about past events? Unfortunately these don't seem to be archived, but being the diligent type I scoured the Library's social media sites to see if I could find reference to one. Not much luck there, either, but on Flickr I did find this picture of an Olympic mascot at the skating rink:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/vancouverpubliclibrary/4129211142/in/set-72157622738875615/

No pics of Big Macs being shoved down toddlers throats - no doubt these have been redacted.

So that's one event that could be independently confirmed. Has the Library's reputation been irreparably harmed by participation in this family skate? Well, personally, I don't think so but that's just me.

Continuing...

Reading the rest of the memo I note that the word "if" appears a lot. "If you are approaching businesses in your area for support..." etc. This is important because I also understand from my librarian friends that event programing at the Library is very decentralized. It is for the most part, up to individual librarians to book, organize and/or coordinate events for their branch.

To participate or not to participate in a Olympics related event is an honest question, but I would like to know if you think libraries are exempt from the Olympic sponsorship rules if they do choose to participate?

You might have noted by now that I'm a bit puzzled by the whole thing. Because at the end of the day it very much appears that people are making the inability to serve a Whopper at a McDonald's sponsored event a freedom of speech issue. That's darkly comical.

There are many genuine freedom of speech and civil liberties issues around these Games. Personally, I'm far more concerned about the police infilitrating citizen groups and agent provocateurs at rallies than I am whether Miga shows up for a Storytime.

Olympic boosters in this provice have lied and exaggerated. But that doesn't excuse those that have concerns from doing the same - you only undermine your credibility with the majority of public who are not strongly pro or anti Olympics.

As for Jean Kavanagh - a lot of the comments here veered into the personal and seemed cruel given her apparent background. YMMV

Huh?

"It's the reciprocal of that"

Could you clarify what you meant by this? That Kavanagh is saying there shouldn't be any non-Olympic events at VPL? Because I don't see that in the memo. Could you quote the actual line[s] you object too?

There have been 100s and 100s of events at the Library this year that would seem to disabuse that notion too.

"in my view it's irrelevant and pointing out what she's done in this case is hardly cruel."

If you are going to label someone a flake, which you did and which in my opinion was superfluous and unnecessary to your argument, then you've introduced the individual's background and character into the discussion, and it does become relevent.

I mean..

...honestly, you're the one who introduced her past employment. Good grief.

Good Grief! It's not that difficult

She's the one who wrote the memo - you're the one who claimed that criticizing her was personal and cruel.

Would you like me to quote your actual words?

She's suggesting that no one be permitted to host any event which might be even tangentially associated with the Olympics and that, even if, for example, the audio-visual equipment of a sponsor is not available that the library's own equipment be disguised to prevent library patrons from discovering it was manufactured by SONY.

That was HER example, in her memo, remember?

If for no other reason than that, her advice is laughable....and ridiculous.

Furthermore, you're the one who implied that her past record (and her letter) somehow gave her a pass relative to what she's done here - remember?

As for the initial point, I think the implication of Kavanagh's memo is quite clear...she's suggesting that no library personnel work with any other sponsor which might be even peripherally connected to an athletic event in the upcoming sacrosanct olympic period.

As I wrote initially, in this time of unconscionable government cutbacks for cultural funding, that's an irresponsible attitude and, it would appear, Kavanagh has a confused idea about who and what she should be supporting and working for.

I beginning to think you're not here in good faith

"you're the one who claimed that criticizing her was personal and cruel"

This is false: I said some of the comments had veered into the personal. I don't see how calling her a "flake" advances your argument (are you debating on the facts, or on character? Choose one and stick to it). No one arguing in good faith could claim that I was saying the mere act of criticism is cruel.

"which might be even tangentially associated"

This is false. The memo specifically states "These guidelines apply to somewhat large events that branches or Central may be holding, alone or with other community partners. If it is a very small, low-key event in a branch, the rules are not so strict but do try to abide by the VANOC sponsorship rules".

Did you even read the memo? "Tangentially associated"?!? Given the above that's not an accurate characterization.

"somehow gave her a pass relative to what she's done here - remember?"

I said no such thing. I said the actual facts don't merit the reaction it's garnered, and noted the criticism had veered into the personal. As this discussion has gone on, your argument has lost whatever coherency it had. Let me just recount:

1. You are fine with Library events having sponsors.

2. You are fine with the Library participating in Olympic events.

3. Somehow the Marketing Director of the Library writing guidelines for staff about the sponsorship rules for participating in Olympic events is unconscionable.

4. Her background is irrelevant, but her work history suggests she is a flake.

5. Given the economic climate the Library should attract sponsors by undermining the concept of sponsorship.

You are not impressing me G West.

Now who's moving into the 'personal'?

In fact, I called her a 'flak' not a 'flake'...there is a difference and she is, demonstrably a flak in her promotion of certain 'kinds' of sponsorship as opposed to other kinds.
As for what I claimed you said, I'll repeat your words exactly:

As for giving her a pass - I think you did; and I think your words reflected that precisely.

On the sponsorship issue: As a matter of principle I'm not in favour of any corporate interference in areas of education and culture but that's the world we live in.

Sadly.

If you thought I was trying to 'impress' you or anyone, you are sadly mistaken. I couldn't care less what you think - I do care about what administrators in the public sphere do in my name and with my tax dollars. Otherwise I would not have commented at all about Ms Kavanagh's behavior.

The only person doing undermining, in my view, is Ms Kavanagh. Given the fact she declined to elaborate or clarify her actions I think the conclusion I've drawn is entirely justified.

Cheers.