May 3, 2004

Mr. Patrick A. Losinski
Executive Director
Columbus Metropolitan Library
96 S. Grant Ave.
Columbus, OH 43215

Dear Mr. Losinski:

As you no doubt know by now, two weeks ago the Supreme Court denied certiorari on my lawsuit. So that’s over.

However, I am writing to you to see if I might convince you to nonetheless remove the restriction on my using the Library barefoot. It’s now been 3 years since I have been there. I have been using the Pickerington Library (barefoot, of course) during that time, but the Columbus Metropolitan Library has a much better collection. I’d love to be able to use it again, but since I go barefoot just about everywhere, I refuse to specially don shoes just to go in.

The shoe rule was Larry Black’s rule. I am hoping that you do not have the vested interest in maintaining the rule that he did.

I still for the life of me cannot figure out how a few incidents of feces or other materials on the floor (almost all in the restrooms) constitute a danger to a barefooted person, despite what the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals assumed in their opinion. Nor can I figure out how any of the other supposed dangers have any empirical support. During the lawsuit, I was forced to guess at what the judges might be thinking, but it was clear that, by ignoring the evidence, they were more interested in upholding authority than in carefully applying the law to the facts. They seem to have preferred to rest upon myth.

When you were quoted in the January, 2004, Columbus Monthly article, you said, “I don’t characterize us as unique. An airport facility, museum or courthouse would probably experience the same thing.” That is probably true; however, none of those other venues have any sort of rule banning bare feet like the Library does. That is where the Library is unique.

Port Columbus has no such rule. I have flown barefoot from there to Newark and to Houston. No problem. In addition, I regularly have been at Port Columbus to drop off or pick up guests. They simply do not have a shoe rule. In fact, as you are no doubt well aware, people going through security are often asked to remove their shoes. Starting out barefoot just makes security that much easier.

The Smithsonian Institution also has no such rule. Although I was once tossed from there, a letter to their legal counsel cleared that up, and I have been back there numerous times, barefoot.

Courthouses also have no such rule. While doing research for my lawsuit, I regularly used the Columbus Law Library in the Franklin County Courthouse Complex barefoot. While I was stopped once, I was allowed in once the security guards confirmed that there was no such rule. In addition, I filed my court papers in the Joseph P. Kinneary U.S. Courthouse in Columbus barefoot, and at the Potter Stewart U.S. Courthouse in Cincinnati barefoot.

In addition, I have gone barefoot without trouble in all of the following places: The United States Capitol Building, the Statehouse in Columbus, numerous Post Offices, the Pickerington Library, Ohio Department of Motor Vehicles buildings, the Columbus Health Department building, the Franklin County Board of Health building, Pickerington School District Buildings, Krogers, CVS, Wendy’s, The Andersons, Meijer, Wal-Mart, Galyans, Gander Mountain, Hallmark, SportMart, PetSmart, Lowes, Sears Hardware, Big Bear (before they went bankrupt), Barnes & Noble, OfficeMax, Staples, Media Play, Toys R Us, Hobbyland, and Radio Shack.

The real question becomes: why is it that these places can all handle barefoot patrons without difficulty, but the Columbus Metropolitan Library cannot?

I’m afraid that it appears to me that the Library has simply fallen into accepting a common misconception, and is unwilling to admit so, even to the point of wasting money to defend their misconception. And, unfortunately, the courts were unwilling to allow a critical examination of that misconception.

I must also point out that my going barefooted in the Library neither inconvenienced nor harmed anyone. Nobody even noticed that I visited the Reynoldsburg branch barefoot 20 times. Of the 9 times I visited the Main library barefoot, 6 times I was not even noticed. Of the 3 times I was noticed, once was on the way out, once was after I’d already been in there an hour, and the third time I was noticed on the way in, and it took 20 minutes to even find were I was. This is not a problem that needed to be fixed. While bare feet might be considered inappropriate dress (though it certainly wasn’t 70 years ago), that is just a cultural convention. The Library accepts flip-flops, which cover no more of the foot than going barefoot, so it cannot be the sight of a foot that is somehow inappropriate.

I am truly sorry that the Library had to waste scarce resources fighting this suit, when they simply could have ignored my going barefoot. Unfortunately, Larry Black was not about to allow a challenge to his authority.

The courts also ignored my state law questions. I’d hate to see the library spend more money to resolve those questions. In addition, those state law questions are now interwoven with interesting res judicata questions because of the way the courts ignored the state law questions.

Anyways, I again ask you to remove the restriction on my using the Library barefoot. Libraries are supposed to be places of learning—it would be nice if your Library could learn to be more accepting of different preferences, and to study this issue to learn that going barefoot engenders no particular hazard. If I can be of any assistance in providing you with answers to any questions you might have about going barefoot, I would be more than happy to oblige.

Thank you for your time and effort.

Sincerely,

Robert A. Neinast