The library consolidation committee met Tuesday night to discuss options for a possible combined South Boston/Halifax County library operation.
Late last month, South Boston Town Council entered into a contract with the Danville urologic clinic to purchase the vacant Urology Clinic Building on Hamilton Blvd.
Under the contract, the town had 90 days in which to finalize plans to use the two-story building for consolidated purposes.
Ross Garrett, chairman of the Halifax County-South Boston Regional Library Board of Trustees, emphasized that the bottom line remained the same, regardless of the outcome of the library issue.
"As long as we serve the public - that's our goal. We will work with what the governing bodies decide," Garrett said.
Because of the 90-day option, the committee felt a need to proceed with obtaining preliminary costs for a consolidated library building, including refurbishment and maintenance costs.
Robert R. Walsh, library buildings and grants consultant from Richmond, recently inspected the proposed site on Hamilton Blvd., and is currently drawing up plans for remodeling the approximately 11,000 square-foot building for use as a library.
Halifax County Supervisors T.E. West and R.E. "Dickie" Abbott, both committee members, said the library consolidation issue is a difficult one.
"I've been on the board (of supervisors) for about 33 years, and this has caused more controversy than anything I've ever done," said Abbott.
"I heard from people today telling me not to move the (Halifax) library. Those people included current and retired school teachers," Abbott added.
"It's a tough, political issue and it's a very emotional issue," said West.
The committee discussed possible satellite locations to take advantage of the surplus of periodicals and books that would occur should the South Boston and Halifax libraries merge.
According to figures provided by Library Board trustee Paul Johnson, there is enough surplus to equip at least two satellite libraries, one each in the northern and southern parts of the county.
Areas mentioned as possible locations for satellite libraries included Volens, Clover, Virgilina and Cluster Springs.
"We need to know the cost of operating two libraries compared to one library and satellite locations. We need to tell people what we're trying to do," said West.
The future of the county bookmobile was also discussed. According to Garrett, it serves as a mobile source of books for people who cannot get to the library.
"Beyond that, we need to keep the bookmobile to carry volumes between libraries," mentioned Garrett.
"There are occasions we need books from the Danville library as well. At the point where the present bookmobile needs replacing, we may need to look at a smaller vehicle, such as a van," said Johnson.
The committee agreed that a consolidated library system could result in an increase of services, and the possibility of extended hours through the weekday evenings and weekends.
The building on Hamilton Blvd. has a basement, which is ideal for a possible computer lab, and space for other functions, such as geneological research, according to Garrett.
The committee agreed to make a cost comparison between the current two-library system and the proposed consolidated library and its satellite branches.
Committee members will also travel to look at the operations of other comparable libraries.
They will also study the floor plan for the proposed central library on Hamilton Blvd. after it is completed by the Library Development and Networking Division of the Library of Virginia.
Their next meeting will be scheduled at that point.

Commonwealth's Attorney John E. Greenbacker Jr. released a memorandum yesterday in response to defense motions seeking to dismiss murder charges against Marquis Lovelle White.
Judge Leslie M. Osborn refused to rule on that and other motions presented by White's attorney, Robert H. Morrison, in a hearing on June 22.
During that hearing, Judge Osborn ordered both the commonwealth and the counsel for the defendant to submit additional briefs that will be ruled on July 17.
White, 20, is accused in the October 4, 1999, shooting death of Phillip Luenter Carrington following what investigators have speculated as a drug dispute gone bad.
His trial, originally scheduled for June 22, is now scheduled for July 19 in 10th District Circuit Court.
According to Greenbacker's memorandum, the motion to dismiss raises five possible issues, pertaining to circumstances surrounding White's release from jail on June 22, as well as White's right to a speedy trial.
The text of Greenbacker's memorandum follows:
The Issues
The Commonwealth believes that Mr. White's motion to dismiss raises five possible issues:
I. Was it improper for the prosecutors to advise the magistrate regarding Mr. White's release?
II. Did Mr. White have to sign the recognizance form before he could be released from jail?
III. Was it improper to release Mr. White without his assuming in writing the bond terms set forth in the recognizance?
IV. Were Mr. White's constitutional rights to due process and a speedy trial violated?
V. If the prosecutors' actions are deemed improper, is dismissal of the charges the appropriate remedy?
Argument I
There is no misconduct in the prosecutor advising the magistrate regarding Mr. White's release.
Section 19.2-45 of the amended Code of Virginia declares, "It shall be the duty of the attorney for the Commonwealth to render legal advice to the magistrates within his city or county and to advise them, when necessary, of changes in law and procedure." It was therefore appropriate for the prosecutor to express his opinion to the magistrate on how Mr. White's case should be handled when White decided not to sign the recognizance.
Argument II
Mr. White did not have to sign a recognizance to be released after his recognition was attested in a court order.
A person who is charged with a crime is Virginia may be released on bail or his execution of a signed commitment or recognizance to appear at trial and meet other enumerated terms of §19.2-135 of the Code of Virginia, as amended. However, such execution of a recognizance is unnecessary if the accused is recognized in court to reappear at a later date to answer the charges, and the notice of that recognizance is set forth in a court's order. §19.2-137, Code of Virginia, as amended. Mr. White was present with his attorney at the hearing of June 14, 2000, and was recognized orally and in the court's written order to reappear for trial. Accordingly the entry of an order of recognition was sufficient to secure his release in lieu the recognizance procedure set forth in §19.2-135.
Argument III
It was not improper to release Mr. White without his assenting in writing to the bond terms set forth in the recognizance.
Mr. White argues that it was a violation of the Circuit Court's order to release him without his signing the recognizance prepared by the clerk of the court. It contained additional terms of his bond that Judge Wellons orally required of White at the hearing of June 14, but which were not mandated in the written order endorsed by counsel and entered by the judge at the conclusion of the June 14 hearing.
As stated above, release on a signed recognizance is unnecessary if an accused is recognized to reappear in court. The core of Mr. White's argument is that the Commonwealth's Attorney's recommendation that he be released without his assuming in writing the obligations orally required by Judge Wellons affected an illegal unilateral change in the court's order. The Commonwealth rejects this interpretation as unsupported by black letter precedent. A court speaks only through its written order. Walton v. Commonwealth, 256 Va 85, 94, 501 S.E. 2d 134 (1998); Walker v. Commonwealth, 225 Va 5, 8, 301 S.E. 2d 28 (1983). If there is a variance between the transcript of a hearing and the written order entered by the presiding court, the written order will be presumed to accurately reflect the court's decision. Stamper v. Commonwealth, 220 Va 260, 280281, 257 S.E. 2d 808 (1979); Woodfork v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 154, 159, 521 S.E. 2d 791 (1999). Since the circuit judge undertook to set the terms of Mr. White's reappearance for trial, and those terms were contained in the court's written order, it could not be erroneous for prosecutors to urge White's release in conformity solely with the terms of the order.
Argument IV
Mr. White's constitutional right to due process and a speedy trial were not violated.
Mr. White has conceded that because he had not been held continuously in custody for five months awaiting trial, only the nine-month limit of Virginia Code § 19.2-243 is applicable to his case. TB 29; See Robbs v. Commonwealth, 252 Va 433, 478 S.E. 2d 699 (1996). However, he claims that the actions of the Commonwealth's Attorney in bringing about his release from incarceration are of such a magnitude that they require dismissal of the charges against him. White apparently believes this is the appropriate remedy for an alleged denial of procedural due process and his right to a speedy trial, as secured by the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and §§ 8 and 11 of the Constitution of Virginia.
The Commonwealth knows of no constitutional right for a prisoner to remain in jail. As set forth in the previous arguments, Mr. White had no vested right to be released only on signing of a recognizance. See § 19.2- 147, Code of Virginia, as amended. Even if he did, his release without signing a recognizance would not preclude the Commonwealth's prosecution on the charges pending against him, because the recognizance provisions of the Code of Virginia are directory rather than mandatory, and do not specify dismissal or any other remedy for the Commonwealth's non-compliance with their terms. See Altimont Wilkes v. Commonwealth, Va (Record No. 991997,) June 9, 2000.
To the extent Mr. White's argument is based on an alleged denial of his nonstatutory right to a speedy trial in the extension of the trial date to at most six rather than five months after his preliminary hearing, there can be no finding of a violation of the Sixth Amendment without consideration of the four evidentiary factors of Barker v. Wingo:
1. Length of delay;
2. The reason for the delay;
3. The defendant's assertion of his right; and
4. Any prejudice to the defendant.
--Id, 407 U.S. at 530-533
As the Barker court noted, "Until there is some delay that is presumptively prejudicial, there is no necessity for inquiry into the other factors that go into the balance." Id., 407 U.S. at 530-531. The U.S. Supreme Court has noted that a period of one year between arrest and trial is the general rule of thumb used by the courts in finding a delay presumptively prejudicial. Doggett v. U.S., 505 U.S. 647 at 652, n.1. (1992). Even if there was a presumptive prejudice by length of delay, there was no assertion of the defendant's speedy trial right until, perhaps, the hearing of June 17, 2000, and no showing of prejudice to Mr. White's case. Regarding the reason for the delay, institutional delays in holding trial, such as those caused by a congested docket, will be weighed against the prosecution, but not heavily. See U.S. v. Automated Medical Labs, Inc., 770 F. 2d 399 (4th Cir., 1985), U.S. v. Sarirs. 523 F. 2d 1177, 1183, (U.S. App. D.C., 1975) How, then, could there be any violation of Mr. White's nonstatutory Sixth Amendment rights in this case?
Argument V
Even if the prosecution's actions were somehow improper, dismissal of White's charges is not an appropriate remedy.
The Commonwealth concedes that a true violation of Mr. White's statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy trial would result in dismissal of the charges against him. But if the only possible violation involved in this case was a failure to delay Mr. White's release until a circuit judge decided whether or not he should be released without signing a recognizance, then dismissal of the charges against him could not be an appropriate remedy. If it was one, the error committed did not necessarily deprive the accused of a constitutional right. Accordingly, it would result in a reversal and new trial only if White had gone to trial and the reviewing court found that the error contributed to or resulted in his conviction. See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 at 21-22 (1967); Brant v. Commonwealth, 32 Va App S-31, _S.E. 2d _ (April 25, 2000). Since no trial has been held yet, there can be no justification for Mr. White's receiving a dismissal of the charges based on the prosecution's advice to the magistrate.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Commonwealth prays that the court deny Mr. White's motion to dismiss as groundless.

A sentencing hearing has been set for August 7 for a young Scottsburg man convicted of statutory rape in Lunenburg County.
Nineteen-year-old Jesse James West of 2174 Burton Road, Scottsburg, entered a guilty plea to the charge in a trial held June 5 in Lunenburg County Circuit Court.
According to a press release from Lunenburg County prosecutor Robert Clement, the charge stemmed from a September 1999 incident in Lunenburg County involving a 13-year-old girl who became pregnant and has now had the baby.
West was allowed to remain free on bond following his trial upon the conditions that he have no contact with the victim and that he not be alone with any female under the age of 18 without the specific approval of the girl's parents.
The press release stated that according to a summary of the evidence, this case was brought to the attention of the Lunenburg County Sheriff's Office on November 20, 1999, when the mother reported to the police that her 13-year-old daughter was pregnant.
Her daughter admitted that she had had a sexual relationship with the defendant in September 1999 one evening when her parents were away on a trip.
According to the girl's statement, she said West showed up at her house, and she let him in to watch television. She said he then asked her if she wanted to have sex and she said yes, so they went to her bedroom.
She stated that later she talked with him and he said that if she got pregnant, he would be responsible enough to take care of her and the baby.
When interviewed by Deputy Sheriff Gail Berkley, West confessed that he had sex with the girl, but said that he thought that she was 15 years old.
In the summary of evidence, it was reported that one witness was available who had taught a Vacation Bible School class last year which West had also attended. At the assembly of the students, the teacher called for those children 13 and under to go to one section of the church while the older ones went elsewhere. The victim would have testified that West asked her later if she was just 13, and she confirmed that she was.

Rain or shine, the 20th annual Virginia Cantaloupe Festival will get underway next Wednesday afternoon at the Halifax County Fairgrounds.
The move to the fairgrounds is just one of the many changes that have been made to the Halifax County Chamber of Commerce-sponsored festival in recent years.
This year there will be two stages set up.
One will be on the fairground's midway and will feature the Caribbean sounds of The Key West Band.
They will be performing when the festival gates open at 4 p.m. and will continue until 7.
From 7 to 9:30 p.m. The Fantastic Shakers will take the stage as the headliners.
Another change this year will be the menu with locally-grown sweet corn once again returning to tempt the tastebuds.
There will also be buttered biscuits, beef and barbecue rolls, slow-cooked pinto beans with all the trimmings, fruit cups brimming with watermelon, cantaloupe, blackberries and grapes.
And don't forget those Halifax County cantaloupes.
The freshly-picked melons will be there in abundance, available plain, or with a heaping scoop of ice cream.
The food this year will be served differently, with individual food items available at different booths.
This will allow for better food selection and faster service.
Local growers will once again play a big part in the festival with Reese Farms providing the corn, Cole Berry Farm bringing the berries.
Tomatoes, watermelon and cantaloupes will be provided by Hilton Hudson, Anthony Powell, Allen Hayes, Tommy Hudson and Reese Farms.
Tickets are available through advance sales only at $25 each.
Tickets can be purchased at the chamber office, Triangle Florist, Holiday Inn Express or the World of Sports. Festival t-shirts are also available for $15 each.

By CATHERINE WILSON
AP Business Writer
MIAMI (AP) - A judge Thursday brushed aside a request for a mistrial in a landmark case against the tobacco companies, rejecting the suggestion jurors could have been influenced by a headline saying the companies could afford to pay billions in damages.
The judge refused the request after no jurors told him they had seen any news coverage, and the tobacco attorneys then resumed their closing arguments.
The 300,000 to 700,000 smokers accuse the industry of making a deadly, defective product and are asking for up to $196 billion in punitive damages.
The front-page headline in Thursday's Miami Herald read, ''Experts say tobacco firms can afford to pay billions.'' The tobacco companies have told jurors they cannot afford a multibillion-dollar verdict.
Philip Morris attorney Dan Webb asked for the mistrial outside the jury's presence. Circuit Judge Robert Kaye brought the jurors into the courtroom and asked them collectively if they had been exposed to any publicity about the case since they went home Wednesday.
The jurors are instructed not to read articles or watch reports of the trial, and Kaye asks that question daily.
When no jurors said they had seen any stories, Kaye continued the trial without comment.
Attorney Anthony Upshaw, representing Brown & Williamson, the last company to address the jury, told the jury it must decide whether it is ''necessary to spank (the cigarette companies) or destroy them.''
The tobacco attorneys have argued that even a multimillion-dollar punitive damage award would snuff out the industry.
R.J. Reynolds attorney Jim Johnson said Wednesday his company cannot pay a substantial award because its current debts outpace its ready cash. ''Like many individuals, Reynolds is living  paycheck to paycheck.''
Webb asked jurors not to make smokers rich with a big verdict.
''They can become instant millionaires as a bonus above and  beyond fully compensating them for their injuries,'' he said. ''In many ways, the future of my client Philip Morris and its employees and its stockholders rest in your hands.''
If the jury awarded $75 million, the average smoker would receive about $150 if it were split among 500,000 people. If the jury awarded the $154 billion suggested by the smokers, the average payout would be more than $300,000.
The attorney for Liggett, the smallest corporate defendant, called the smokers' request irresponsible given the company's break with the industry in 1997 to begin settling lawsuits.
''Liggett has shown that a tobacco company can act responsibly,'' Aaron Marks said.
The six-member jury already has awarded $12.7 million in compensatory damages to three representative smokers. The jury must now decide how much to award in punitive damages, which are intended to punish and deter misconduct.
The key tobacco defense is that the industry has changed its ways since states began suing in 1994, and that $257 billion in settlements is enough.
The companies have argued that they should not be required to pay any more than their combined net worth of $15.3 billion, the difference between their assets and liabilities.
The case is the first smokers' class-action lawsuit to go to trial and the most serious financial threat to the industry. Any verdict will be appealed and could take at least two years to move through Florida's courts.
Other defendants are Lorillard Tobacco and the industry's defunct Council for Tobacco Research and Tobacco Institute.

James Jackson Sr. (Jimmy), age 72, of Scottsburg died Sunday, July 9 at Halifax Regional Hospital.
Mr. Jackson was born in Halifax County on June 2, 1928.
Survivors include his wife, Ada Jackson of Scottsburg; two daughters, Emma Carden and Debra Barksdale, both of Scottsburg; two sons, James Jackson Jr. and Robert Jackson, both of Scottsburg; seven grandchildren; four great-grandchildren; one sister, Mary Waller of Gladys; and one brother, Lee Jackson of Chase City.

Funeral services for Mr. Jackson will be held today, July 14 at 1 p.m. at Crystal Hill Baptist Church with the Rev.Louis Leigh Sr. officiating. Burial will follow in the church cemetery.