I haven’t seen the new Matrix movie yet, but I hope to soon. I enjoyed the first one, and even though sequels of this type are often disappointments when you compare them to the original, Hollywood has figured out that most people who like a movie will shell out for another like it.

For those of you who haven’t seen the Matrix, it revolves around the idea that people’s lives are all just a dream, planted in their heads by sinister machines who have taken over the world and enslaved humans to use as an energy source. (Sounds realistic, doesn’t it?)

The &uot;Matrix&uot; is the computer program that connects all the people’s dreams together and provides an artificial world in which they think they live. Our heroes in the story know it’s all artificial, but one of the keys of the movie is that when they are in the Matrix, they can still be killed, even though what happens there is not really happening. Why? Because if the mind thinks it is dead, the body cannot live, or something like that. Perception is everything.

I mention it because this idea &045; that what we think is true is more important than the truth &045; is mirrored all the time in our lives. Take, for example, the recent mini-controversy over the city of Albert Lea’s library study.

The reality is that the city staff and the library committee, which includes a council member and appointed citizens, have been talking about this library thing for months, nay, years. The city council budgeted for this $25,000 library study at the end of last year, so it shouldn’t have been a surprise to anyone. And the site discussed recently, on Broadway Avenue near the lake, has been publicly named before. A Nov. 15, 2002 Tribune article discussed the library issue in depth, around the time the city was considering the

study for the next year’s budget. The story included speculation about the site in question, as well as the vacant, city-owned &uot;Vault&uot; building, as potential sites.

However, judging from how things went at last

Monday’s council meeting, it seems many people have a perception that this library issue is being rushed through with little public discussion about the site. It appeared to many that this study anointed the spot across from the theater as the only location being considered. And, it appeared that the study would be the start of an unstoppable process by which the city would get a new library built.

How much of that perception is true? Hard to say. I think there’s some truth in it. But what concerns me is that the city hasn’t demonstrated much of an ability to affect people’s perceptions, which gives the impression that they don’t really care what people think. The last time the council or the public heard about this study, it was ill defined and could have meant about anything, but by the next time the council heard about it, it had completely taken shape and they were expected to vote on it.

It’s true that the public can’t be involved every step of the way, but they could at least be informed. Even some of the council members Monday seemed taken aback by how the library study had developed. Why couldn’t the council and the public have been informed about this earlier in the process? Why was their first exposure to the idea at the meeting where the decision was supposed to be made? This is a common phenomenon here.

The city holds what they call pre-agenda meetings the Thursday before the council meetings to discuss some of this stuff in advance. But by the time those meetings are held, the agenda is already set. Only City Manager Paul Sparks typically attends on behalf of the city staff. The meetings are usually short and relatively uneventful. Often, not all the council members attend.

Instead of those meetings, why couldn’t the city hold workshop meetings once or twice a month? The council would attend, the city manager would update them on what’s happening with certain projects, and city department heads or staff could appear to explain what’s happening or answer questions instead of everything going through Sparks. These meetings would be public, so people could see them in person, or more likely, find out what happened through the media. And the council could hear about some of these projects and provide a little direction long before and idea comes before them in the council chambers. That way, nobody is surprised when something like this library study pops up, and instead of voting something down if they aren’t sure about it and waiting for it to resurface, they can get their concerns addressed before that point.

And, the public would get a chance to see how these ideas are developing and get more details before something is suddenly on the agenda for a vote.

That just might change some of that perception that the city makes plans behind closed doors and rushes things through the council.

Dylan Belden is the Tribune’s managing editor. His column appears Sundays.