Archives

Before we dive into this question, there are few fundamentals to review.

FIRST: Any institution publishing content like a student newspaper should have a “DMCA Agent” where notice of alleged infringement can be sent.[1] This allows a publisher of online content to enjoy “safe harbor” (meaning safety from certain claims of infringement).

If you would like to see if your institution has this, you can check it out at: https://www.copyright.gov/dmca-directory/

SECOND: Okay, that’s great, but of course, the publisher of a college/university student newspaper is usually the school, which is also the owner of the website. Can a publisher have “safe harbor” from itself? Not really, but the third party contracted to host the content can.

THIRD: While the “legacy media” landscape—including the horizon where student newspapers sit—is rapidly evolving, all student publications should still be teaching student journalists and editors how to used appropriately licensed images, or to document when an image is used under a claim of “Fair Use.”

The record of the license or the Fair Use analysis should be retained for at least seven years after publication.

Of course, none of that is helpful to the present situation, but it is important background context!

And with that, let’s answer the question: is it advisable to leave the collection in NYS Historic Newspapers and continue adding to it, or should we plan to take it down and only digitize future copies for in-house preservation purposes?

To answer this, the library (which is part of the college, too) can work with the advisor and student leaders of the paper to ensure the proper documentation regarding licensing and Fair Use is being generated and retained.

The goal of the collaboration should be to educate the student journalists about proper permissions and Fair Use as well as to ensure that the library can continue to properly archive the paper as it has done for almost a century.

This achieves two things: first, the students will learn about this evolving and ever-critical consideration in journalism and creative work. Second, it will position the college and any third-party provider to easily resolve (as in, tell to go away) copyright claimants in the future.

When the college knows that the licensing and Fair Use documentation is being routinely put in place, it can proceed with both the internal archiving and the external archiving.

This sounds a bit arduous, but it boils down to:

1. Set up a meeting with the student newspaper.
2. Discuss the importance of the archives.
3. Discuss how important licensing and fair use is for archiving and day-to-day operations of the paper.
4. Make sure the newspaper has and is following policies for Fair Use and licensing.
5. If you feel like going the extra mile, ask for how much insurance coverage there is for copyright infringement! The insurance policy’s requirements will support adherence to Fair Use and licensing policies.

If things can’t happen that way (because major meetings and policy development don’t always magically happen in a given semester), the fallback is the library’s selective redaction of the content online, with a note on how the content can be obtained in hard copy. “Due to a DMCA claim, this image is not available via our online archive. To obtain access to the originally published content, which has been retained by the publisher in hard copy to ensure archival integrity, contact EMAIL, and it will be evaluated under 17 U.S.C. 108.”

Thank you for a great question!

Yes, we can talk about putting things behind a log-in to avoid misappropriation of content! Thank you for asking.

At the same time, we can (and must) talk about putting things behind a log-in to avoid problems with security, privacy, intellectual property, and data integrity.

Of course, by “things,” we mean “websites,” which are now a significant part of the services provided by libraries, museums, and archives.

Because websites perform a huge array of function, for purposes of this question, we are going to talk about library, museum, and archival websites that perform the following functions:

• Business information presentation (“About us,” “Our team,” “Policies,” etc.);
• Data repositories (archives and online collections);
• Searching the website and/or repository; and
• Integrated library systems services.[1]

Common website functions this question is NOT going to specifically cover are:

• Financial transactions (like donating to a museum over a website);
• Collaborative research (like crowd-sourcing a survey);
• Interactivity (for example, a social media site).

We’ll tackle those another day.[2]

Why am I narrowing the scope this way?

After 30 years of development,[3] libraries, museums, and archives use their websites as alternatives for their physical locations. The value of this—if it was ever in question—was shown during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Because of this, such websites must be:

• Mission-focused;
• Consistent and reliable;
• Compliant; and
• Trusted.

Current trends in Internet activity show that the risks that were always present when operating and relying on a website are only getting starker. In addition to the operability risks flagged in the Library Journal article cited by the member, the risks posed to security, privacy and data integrity are significant, too.

Here is a short, fictional story that illustrates some of those risks, in combination with a few other factors:

***START OF SCENARIO***

The Scribe Museum is a beloved institution in Tinytown, New York. Tinytown is the birthplace of Daniel D. Scribe, who kept the minutes at the first meeting of an important civil rights organization.

The Scribe Museum is a solid limestone building that has the physical collection of the complete works of Daniel D. Scribe, and recently, it digitized its entire collection. The digital collection is hosted by another group, which subcontracts services to a cloud provider.

To preserve the physical collection while the building’s heating, cooling, and ventilation system is replaced, the Scribe Museum rents a temporary location and moves the archival material per established best practices.

The Scribe Museum’s website is www.scribemuseum.net, hosted by GoMommy.com. The digital collection is open to all. The website says “While our archives are safely off-site and our building is being given some TLC, peruse our digital collection! Civil rights are always open.” The Scribe Museum’s leadership is savvy and does not make the location of the relocated physical archives broadly known.

A person with a lot of free time decides that the Scribe Museum’s civil rights mission is too “woke.” They spend a few weeks patiently downloading the full archive in small tranches and then launch a bot attack to deny service by the website. They then modify the scanned documents to change them in small but nasty ways, create an alternate website at www.scribemuseum.not, and post them to various social media sites to disseminate.

The villain also hacks the Scribe Museum’s server and holds the content for ransom, gets access to and posts all their emails, and uses social engineering to find the physical location of the archive for some old-fashioned property destruction. They also deliver some pizza to every board member as a “message.”

***END OF SCENARIO***

Ugh. Just writing that out was... not fun.

So how can a library, museum, or archive use a log-in system to help avoid this scenario?

We have to face it head-on: there is no one way to avoid this type of scenario, including use of a log-in. Rather, libraries, museums and archives must use a combination of log-in, enhanced security, back-ups, intellectual property protections, and (most critically) train human beings to be safer, or as I call it, “harden the target.”

How does a library, museum or archive harden the target of its website?[4]

Several things:

First, a library, museum, or archive must consider the security and architecture of its website. Is it ready to withstand an attack? Is it set up to be resilient? What level of functionality must it have assurance of?

To answer these questions, the institution must consider—and deeply reconsider—the purpose of its website. Is the website just a directory service (“Get here,” “Accommodations,” “Admission,” etc.), or is the content a core service? Does all the content currently on it have to be there? If so, does the benefit of immediate access outweigh the risks?

After asking these questions, the institution must consider the information it puts on its “open-to all” part of the website, what it might want to put behind a log-in screen, and what should only be accessible after some human contact. For each level of access, the risk of it being compromised should be worth the benefit of having disclosed it.

As the article cited by the member points out, this change is viewed as an existential threat by many cultural institutions. But while it is certainly a big change, it is also a chance to reinvest in human connectivity in addition to evolving technology.

Here are examples of how this opportunity can benefit an institution:

Example 1: After assessing its mission and website, a museum posts only its essential “about us” information on its unrestricted webpages. Wanting the website to stay engaged and dynamic, it also regularly showcases 20 examples of its prime collection, unrestricted and with metadata, on its website and social media. It then allows standing access to search its full digitized collection with a free log-in. To obtain a log-in, a user provides information to authenticate them as a valid user and agrees to the “Terms of Use.” When logged in during open hours, the user also has the ability to live-chat with a real human at the museum, a position that was specifically designed and built into the budget while the website presence was updated.

Example 2: After assessing its mission and website, a library posts all its “about us” information on its unrestricted web pages. Library users with cooperative library system cards can log in to perform all functions on the integrated library system (catalog search, reserves, seeing what books they have checked out). The library also has a separate log-in for those who are interested in its Rare Books Room; that log-in page is accessible after a general page describing the special collection in broad terms. Users without a library card can also call the library to make an appointment to view the rare books.

Example 3: After assessing its mission and website, an author’s archive posts its mission, location, fundraising, and contact information on its unrestricted web pages. The archive is by appointment only, onsite or via videoconference. Except for a few teaser documents to showcase the scope of the archive, the digitized version of the archive is similarly accessible on-site only. The archive invests in people being on-site and using technology to connect with those who want to work with the content. Since the content is still protected by copyright, the archive also registers and takes steps to put the proper notation on digitized content.

Example 4: After assessing its mission and website, a public university with a digital repository of over 200,000 documents related to health and wellness decides that the mission of the repository is only served if the repository can be searched and accessed without a barrier (such as a log-in). The university works with its IT staff and contract provider to design and invest in a database structure that can withstand periodic high “demand” caused by bots or targeted attacks and has a back-up in the event the primary site is interrupted. The university also develops an AI tool to assess when times of high demand require added resources.[5] The university develops and registers a trademark for the repository and uses it in key areas of the service. Workers are also trained and scheduled to be available on-demand for people who need help with the database. Although the extra design and security add costs, it is decided that the added reliability merits the expense.

In each of these scenarios, the institution is using its mission to determine what needs to be freely online without the barrier of a log-in and what should be further restricted. Just as critically, the institution is considering how human talent fits in and how the institution keeps the resource secure and resilient.

Here at the end of 2025, it is really, truly time to take a long, hard look at what is freely available on websites.

Just like the Internet changed the world in the 90’s, AI and its ability to warp the Internet is changing the world in the 2020’s. Wise institutions will use this as an opportunity to review their mission, assess their needs, and “harden the target” by structuring their online presence and policies to meet the needs of the present. The good news is that a key part of that is investing in people.

Thank you for a great question!

Thank you for such a thoughtful (and complex) question.

To answer it, I am going to respond in the form of a dialogue between a lawyer and librarian that will allow other Ask the Lawyer readers at public institutions to assess if their born-digital archives must comply, too.

After establishing the criteria for applicability, the end of dialogue will address this question: Do the new Title II regulations apply to “born-digital” archival collections, and if so, is there any exception for non-compliant content?

Let’s go!

Lawyer: Hello! I see you want to figure out if your library’s archive of “born-digital” content has to follow the new Title II regs.

Let’s start with an easy question:

Is your institution a “public entity” (or part of a public entity) as governed by 42 U.S.C. 1213(1)?

Librarian: Yes / No / I don’t know!

Lawyer: If you don’t know, or want to double-check your answer, here is the definition of a “public entity”[1] in ADA Title II:

(1) Public entity

The term “public entity“ means—

(A) any State or local government;

(B) any department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or States or local government; and

(C) the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, and any commuter authority (as defined in section 24102(4) [1] of title 49).

Librarian: Aha! / Huh?

Lawyer: If you are still unsure, here is another hint: the term “instrumentality of a state,” as used in 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(B), refers to governmental units or units created by them (like town libraries, school district public libraries, community colleges, SUNY, etc.).

Librarian: Okay, I get it. / Ugh, I’ll ask our library’s lawyer.

[Note: If you are a “public entity,” keep reading this dialogue. If aren’t a public entity… Stop! This dialogue is not for you.]

Lawyer: Okay, with just public entities going forward, it’s time for another soul-searching exploration into your institution’s identity. Is the “total population” of your entity over or under 50,000, making you a “large public entity”?

If you’re over 50,000, then your “Start Date” for these regulations is April 24, 2026.

If you’re under 50,000, then your “Start Date” is April 26, 2027.[2]

Librarian: How does a school or library even have a “population?”

Lawyer: This can get tricky for academic libraries, but here are three examples from the new regulations to help you:

• The total population of a county library is the population of the county of which the library is an instrumentality.
• A public state university located in a town of 20,000 within a state with a population of 5 million would be considered a large public entity for the purposes of this part because it is an instrumentality of the state.
• A county community college in the same state where the county has a population of 35,000 would be considered a “small public entity” for the purposes of this part, because the community college is an instrumentality of the county.

Now that you know if you have to follow this, and if so, when you have to follow it, here are the new requirements for web and mobile accessibility:

Web content and mobile apps that your entity provides or makes available directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements must comply with Level A and Level AA success criteria and conformance requirements specified in WCAG 2.1.

Librarian: Got it! / Uh, what does “WCAG 2.1” mean?

Lawyer: WCAG 2.1 is a standard of accessibility that makes sure web content and mobile apps work are compatible with adaptive technology. If you need more information on it, you can check it out at https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/glance/.

Librarian: Okay, but isn’t this question about exceptions to this rule for “born-digital “content in library archives?

Lawyer: Yes, it is! But to talk about exceptions, it is helpful to talk about requirements.

Librarian: Okay, I get it. But like the question says, aren’t there some exceptions?

Lawyer: Indeed, there are exceptions. Here are some of them from the section[3] quoted by the member:

(1) archived web content;

(2) preexisting conventional electronic documents, unless such documents are currently used to apply for, gain access to, or participate in the public entity's services, programs, or activities;

(3) content posted by a third party, unless the third party is posting due to contractual, licensing, or other arrangements with the public entity;

(4) conventional electronic documents that are about a specific individual, their property, or their account and that are password-protected or otherwise secured; and

(5) preexisting social media posts.

Librarian: Aha! Does “archived web content” cover anything in a public entity’s born-digital archive going forward?

Lawyer: No.

Librarian: Oh. Why not?

Lawyer: Because of how “archived web content” is defined in the new regulations.

With a few modifications for brevity, here are the criteria for archived web content:

(1) Was created before your Start Date, reproduces paper documents created before your Start Date, or reproduces the contents of other physical media created before your Start Date;

(2) Is retained exclusively for reference, research, or recordkeeping;

(3) Is not altered or updated after the date of archiving; and

(4) Is organized and stored in a dedicated area or areas clearly identified as being archived.

Of great importance to the question, this definition does not allow non-compliant born-digital content created after your Start Date, even if it is only on your website or mobile app because it is part of the archive.

Librarian: Okay, but is there another way non-compliant born-digital materials created after our Start Date could be in our online archive?

Lawyer: Yes! The regulations have another exception in a different subsection.[4]

This subsection provides that born-digital content generated by a third party does not have to comply (unless your institution contracted with the third party to provide it).

Here’s an example of how this works:

Let’s say your institution wants to create the archive “Born in Digital Shame: Non-WCAG 2.1-Compliant Materials posted by Public Entities.” You then gathered a bunch of non-WCAG 2.1-compliant content from other public entities, generated after their Start Date, and put it in your archive.

That would be fine. It would be a gallery of non-compliance, but it would be fine.

Librarian: Okay. Can we answer the question now?

Lawyer: Yes, we can now answer the fateful QUESTION: Do the new Title II regulations apply to “born-digital” archival collections, and if so, is there any exception for non-compliant content?

ANSWER: Yes, the new Title II regulations apply to born-digital content, with only the following two exceptions:

1) the content pre-dates your Start Date; or

2) it is from a third party and is on your website only as archival content.[5]

Librarian: That makes sense!

Lawyer: Yes, sometimes federal regulations do make sense… even if you have to write a Socratic dialogue to make sense of them.

Librarian: I need a beverage now![6]

Lawyer: Thank you for a great question!

First, some validation: the faculty member is wise to be considering this issue, since publishing contracts[1] almost always put the responsibility and liability for photo clearances on the author.

In this case, there are several layers of copyright ownership to consider: the original copyright of the photographer, the copyright of the books, and the copyright to any re- publication by which they are being made available (for instance, a digital archive).

Because of the publication dates (1887, 1893), the original copyrights (for the photograph and the original book), are most certainly expired.[2] The only concern would be if the images were somehow used to create a work with a "new" copyright...for instance, if the picture of the long-dead person was enmeshed with a picture of Janelle Monae on a rocket ship to Mars...which isn't the case here.

So, while in the law game there is a rule of "never say never," based on the dates, the images in this question should be free from copyright.  That said, as contemplated by the question, it is almost always a good idea[3] to extend a "courtesy acknowledgement" to a historical society, library or other archival resource that stewarded the image so it could be used for research. 

Even more important when using a digital source, however, is first confirming, and documenting, that the image isn't being taken from a website or repository in violation of any of their "terms of use" conditions.  Written confirmations from the archive, or keeping a screenshot of the "terms of use," image information, and metadata, are all good ways to do this.

Other risks of using old photographs for commercial publications are: the possibility that the image is being used as a trademark, and the possibility that the re-publication could make commercial use of images of deceased "personalities."  These should both be ruled out before publication.

In addition, when using a photo--especially for publication--it is a good idea to confirm that there are no ethical or relational concerns with using certain images.[4]  For these reasons, writing to the historical societies to inquire about images kept in their collections (as the faculty member in this example is doing) is a good idea...just ask for information, not permission.   Checking in with a person who focuses on ethical issues in that particular area of scholarship is wise, too.

[1] This is something "authorlaw.com" attorney Sallie Randolph and I often bicker about. I advise writers to resist such clauses (or demand better royalties for taking on the risk). Sallie, who has negotiated hundreds of author contracts, tells me this is not realistic advice, because for most major publishes, it's non-negotiable. But as I see it, everything in a contract is up for negotiation!

[2]  A good resource for double-checking the date when works are in the "public domain" (which can vary) is at https://guides.library.cornell.edu/copyright/publicdomain. Thank you, Cornell.

[3] I discussed this part with Sallie Randolph, too, and for once, we agreed! When contacting an organization about a public domain image, never ask for permission, but say something like "I am contacting to discuss using a public domain image from your [archive] to see how you would like the organization credited for having made the image available to researchers."

[4] For more on that, see "Ask the Lawyer" RAQ 172.

Several considerations impact the answer to this question:

For a public library, the bare minimum record retention periods are found in a document called "the LGS-1."[1]  The LGS-1 has rules for retention covering everything from your library's charter, to how long you hold onto circulation records.

For an association library, which does not have to follow the LGS-1, those retention rules in the LGS-1 are a good baseline, but you have a bit more latitude.

However, no matter what baseline a library or other cultural organization chooses to adopt, it is good to keep in mind that required retention periods are routinely extended by things like:

• Insurance policy requirements
• Union contracts (for personnel records)
• Grants, and other sponsored funding
• Lawyers instructing a client to retain records as part of a "litigation hold"

In addition, while it can't be considered a formal "retention period", documents are also "retained" by institutions simply due to a tendency to hoard records.  At times, this can be a healthy tendency (like when letters from a first grade class from 1945, written to thank the local library for a story hour, are found in moisture-resistant storage, and they are turned into an exhibit).  Other times, it is not so healthy (like when borrower records from 5 years prior[2] are accessed during a burglary or hack).

For a large library (or museum, or other cultural institution) with robust funding and a large staff, "records management" per the LGS-1 or a customized "record retention policy" is often part of a person’s (or department's) job description--and is supported in the annual budget.  For a smaller library (or museum, or other cultural institution) with less-than-robust funding, and a smaller staff, "records management" is often an afterthought.  This can cause complications when the records pile up, and there is no person--or budget--to sort through them and make sure they are properly retained/purged.

But this question is about retention periods, not the drama they can cause!  So here is the answer:

For the types of records mentioned in the question ("employee records, payroll records, sales and purchase records, mortgage and loan documents"), the retention periods vary; some are "permanent", and others are as short at 6 years.  The LGS-1 (which will pop up when you search "LGS-1") will give you the breakdown.

For an association library that doesn't want to follow the precise requirements of the LGS-1, but still wants a retention policy, below is a model policy.

Thank you for submitting an important question!

[ABC] ASSOCIATION LIBRARY

RECORD RETENTION AND DISPOSAL POLICY

Items in yellow are to be changed or removed

Policy

The ABC Library retains and disposes of records as required by law, contracts, and based on the board's determination of what is in the operational best interests of the Library.

I.        Records are retained as follows:

-Association Library Charter, bylaws, Plan(s) of Service, Annual Reports: PERMANENT

-All records made available per the Open Meetings Law: PERMANENT

-Deeds: PERMANENT

-Contracts: (includes leases, mortgages, loan documents, vendor contracts, employee benefit contracts, warrantees, use of independent contractors): Seven years after termination of all obligations and rights created by contract; in some cases, PERMANENT. See "Archives."

-Employee-related: Seven years after termination of employee.  See "Archives."

NOTE: This will be impacted by an association library's union contracts, employee manual provisions, and employee-related policies; check these documents to ensure consistency.

-Fiscal & Financial: Seven years, unless the relevant fiscal policy, document or transaction it is related to requires longer. See "Archives."

-Archives: PERMANENT

-Records pertaining to library operations (based on the LGS-1 to ensure consistency with non-association libraries in the XYZ Library System):

-Accession records: 1 year after accessioning procedure becomes obsolete

NOTE: Some libraries accession manuscripts, rare books and special collections, but not their general library holdings. In these cases, the accession records need to be retained only for the kinds of materials still accessioned.

 -Informational copies of records prepared by and received from public library system, including but not limited to directories, minutes, budgets and reports: 0 after superseded or obsolete

-Directory of public library system and member libraries, prepared by public library system (member library's copy): 0 after superseded or obsolete

-Library card application records: 3 years after card expires or is inactive

-Borrowing or loaning records: 0 after no longer needed

-Interlibrary loan records, including requests to borrow or copy materials from other libraries, receipts for materials, copy logs, accounting records, and circulation records

a) When no copies of original materials are requested: 0 after no longer needed

b) When copies of original materials are requested: 5 years after order is completed

-Catalog of holdings

a) Manuscript or published catalog: PERMANENT

b) Continuously updated catalog: 0 after superseded or obsolete

-Individual title purchase requisition which has been filled or found to be unfillable: 1 year

-Records documenting selection of books and other library materials:

0 after no longer needed

-Library material censorship and complaint records, including evaluations by staff, patrons' complaints and record of final decision: 6 years after last entry NOTE: Appraise these records for historical significance prior to disposition. Some library censorship records deal with serious constitutional issues and may have value for future research.

-Patron's registration for use of rare, valuable or restricted non-circulating materials: 6 years

-Program and exhibit file documenting planning and implementation of programs, services and exhibits sponsored or co-sponsored by the library, including but not limited to photographs, sketches, worksheets, publicity, brochures, exhibit catalogs, inventory lists, loan agreements, correspondence, attendance sheets or registration forms, and parental consent forms:

a) Parental consent records: 6 years, or 3 years after child attains age 18, whichever is longer

NOTE: Photo release records are covered under item no. 68 in General Administration section. Local Government Schedule (LGS-1) Library/Library System

b) Attendance sheets and registration forms, when no fee is charged: 0 after no longer needed

c) All other records: 6 years after exhibit closed or program ended

NOTE: Appraise these records for historical significance or value for collections documentation prior to disposition. Some of these records may have continuing value for historical or other research and should be retained permanently. Contact the State Archives for additional advice

II.       Records are disposed of as follows:

At the end of the retention period, physical copies are purged via shredding as their retention period expires.[3]

At the end of the retention period, electronic records are routinely disposed of by [insert input from your IT professional].

Archives

Prior to purging, all records of the Library are appraised for historical significance or value for collections documentation prior to disposition. Some of these records may have continuing value for historical or other research and should be retained permanently. Records retained permanently due to historic or research value are designated as "Archives."

[1] For more "Ask the Lawyer" on the LGS-1, see Board of Trustees Notes Retention. The 2022 version of the LGS-1 was, as of April 11, 2022, found here: http://www.archives.nysed.gov/common/archives/files/lgs-1-2022.pdf.

[2] I know library systems are very good about ensuring borrower records are purged from ILS once they are no longer needed, as authorized by the LGS-1.  This is just an extreme example to make my point.

[3] For more information on appropriate ways to dispose of physical copies, visit http://www.archives.nysed.gov/common/archives/files/mr_pub41.pdf.

This question had me on the edge of my seat until the very end.

          WHAT is this 200-year-old document?

          WHO is this mysterious lender?

          WHAT does the original loan agreement look like?

          WHO took the 20-year-old photos?

Sadly, it's possible I'll never know the answers to these questions since none of that information is required to answer the member's question.

Is there any potential legal ramification to us if we decide to accept the item into our collection as a donation with the value he has listed (around $20,000)- i.e. in a situation like a tax audit?

The answer is: maybe, but no big deal.

Uh...

"No big deal"?

Yep.  Here's why:

For a donor to claim a federal income tax deduction based on the fair market value of a donated object, the donor must back up the claimed amount with a recent[1] appraisal.  But the form the donee must sign to acknowledge the gift expressly says:

This acknowledgment does not represent agreement with the claimed fair market value.

So, unless there are enough circumstances to suggest that things are fishy or outright fraudulent, a donee accepting a gift and signing a tax form to enable a donor to claim a deduction puts the risk of inaccuracy on the donor.

That said...

There are other reasons, aside from concerns from the IRS audit, that merit caution in a scenario like the one described by the member.

When a museum that relies solely on the representation of a donor as to the value of a donated object in their collection, the insurance coverage on that object, which should be based on the value of a collection, is based on third-party information. In a worst-case scenario, that could mean an insurance claim is based on what turns out to be inaccurate information. And of course, clear eyes and scrutiny are warranted when part of a donation's value is because of history and/or provenance.

Assessing value might also be part of a museum’s overall evaluation of whether an object fits within the institution's mission and collection management policy. So even if an independent appraisal isn't possible, having a policy of insisting on one for donations in excess of a certain value might be a good policy...and one that, for special circumstances, could be waived.[2]

As with any transaction, there absolutely could be "legal ramifications" for accepting a document[3] worth $20k+, but in and of themselves, those factors shouldn't pose an impediment to accepting such a gift.

Thanks for a great question.

For more information on gift acceptance, income tax deductions, and appraisals, visit the IRS at: https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i8283#en_US_202112_publink62730rd0e827

[1] The appraisal should be done within 6 months of the donation.

[2] Or a donor could be sought to cover the costs

[3] Art and a few other things require the appraisal to be attached.  For more on that, see the IRS guidance linked above.

I can most certainly provide some insight on this topic. But first, some terminology...

For readers who don't know, the "public domain" is the "place" distinct works of authorship (poems, paintings, books, etc.) go to when they are no longer protected by copyright. When a work is "in" the "public domain" it means it can be used without fear of copyright infringement.

Some works are "put" into the public domain by generous authors or owners, who want to optimize access. Some works "fall" into the public domain due to failures of proper registration, or other factors that can vary by countries of origin. And some works are "born" in the public domain...meaning that they have never been subject to copyright protection, even if they are sufficiently original to qualify for it.

A big example of this last category--works "born" in the public domain-- are works authored by the federal government, which are governed by Section105 of the Copyright Act ("United States Government Works"), which flatly states "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government."

Of course, just because an entity can only create works in the public domain, doesn't preclude another avenue of copyright ownership. This is also illustrated by Section 105, which, after barring the feds from creating works protected by copyright, adds that the U.S. Government "is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise." In other words: you can't make 'em, but you can get 'em.

This can lead to ownership pictures like the following scenario: if I work for the U.S. Department of Transportation, and as part of my job, I write a poem about Daylight Savings Time[1], then that poem is not protected by copyright. If, however, I am a free-lance marketer, and the Department of Transportation contracts with me to create that same poem[2] as a work-for-hire, then it can be protected by copyright, even if I assign it to the U.S. Government per the requirements of the contract.

The Copyright Act, however, does not contain a similar provision limiting the ability of states to own copyrights (this makes sense, since states can get snippy when the federal government tries to strip them of assets).

Of course, individual states, on their own, can disclaim ownership of copyright...a nice thing to do, perhaps, when content creation is funded by public dollars. Here in New York, however, such a disclaimer is not a uniform rule...and in fact, the rule is just the opposite.

In the federal government's Copyright Registry, the "State of New York" is the registered author, and/or owner, and/or prior owner, of many copyrights, including this one:

In the registration shown above, the "State of New York" is listed as the author of the registered work as an "employer for hire"...meaning that the State is not only positioned to author original works that qualify for protection, but can even assign those copyrights just like any other free-lancer.[3]

Of course, much of the text generated and maintained by the State of New York is intended for public use, and in some instances, the State has declared it to be "in the public domain".

For example, in 1973, the New York State Attorney General declared that all New York "codes, rules and regulations" are in the public domain and are not subject to copyright (which makes sense; how can a lawsuit be filed if quoting too much law was an infringement?). On the same opinion, however, the NY Attorney General stated that material included in an official compilation of the codes, rules and regulations--but not actually part of the text--is protected by copyright of the Secretary of State (this is what is shown in the registration above).

So, what insight does that give us? The State of New York (and any department thereof) can both own works protected by, and generate works subject to, copyright. Some state-authored materials, however, may be deemed to be in the public domain. There is no over-arching rule; it is content-specific. So, when using works generated or published by the state, caution is just as warranted as with any other author.[4]

Thank you for a great question!

[1] Your tax dollars at work!

[2] Here it is (for more info, visit https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/time-act)

               The Uniform Time Act of '66

               Created nine zones to restrict

               Local authorities who set their clocks

               At a sunshine whim, creating blocks

               To orderly travel and safe crossroads

               'Til somebody had to take control...

               Who are these chronoscient powers-that-be?

               The Time Lords at the USDOT

[3] If anyone wants to FOIL a copy of that work-for-hire contract, I would love to take a look at it. Maybe if we get an intern....

[4] The library community seems to be investigating this topic perpetually. And good news, helpful resources/guides have ongoing development. For example, the article “The state copyright conundrum” by Kyle K. Courtney (https://crln.acrl.org/index.php/crlnews/article/view/17438/19245) describes context around the uncertainty in government document copyright status as faced by librarians and archivists, and points to this resource made by a 2014 Harvard Library Office for Scholarly Communication, Copyright Fellow, Katie Zimmerman: “State Copyright Resource Center”, http://copyright.lib.harvard.edu/states/. Bonus points for the beautiful functionality of the interactive U.S. map, that leads to state-specific guidance on govdoc copyright considerations.

The State of New York has very strong feelings about collecting cultural assets and information.  So strong, that such collections are governed by a host of laws, regulations, and policy.

Precisely which laws, regulations and policy apply to a collection depends on the type of entity doing the collecting.  Museums, historical societies, archives, and libraries all fall under their different (but overlapping) conditions. And before the law takes the wheel, the formation documents of an entity control what items fall within their mission, and what items don't make the cut.

So, for a simple question like: "Can you review our deed of gift and loan forms?" be ready for this response:

Yes!  We can review your deed of gift and loan forms.  To make sure the review supports your mission, is consistent with your governing documents, and ensures compliance with relevant law and regulation, can you send us:

• Charter or Certificate of Incorporation
• Bylaws
• Collection Management Policy
• Most recent form 990 or CHAR 500
• Insurance Summary (optional, but it helps to know the extent of insurance coverage for both owned and borrowed items)

Now, if your institution needs your forms reviewed, and you can't find these things, don't worry, we can help you find them.  Also be prepared for a quick phone call asking if there are any current disputes involving collection items, and to discuss any specific goals you have for the forms.

When reviewing gift forms, the goal is always to ensure that the contract terms created by the form are consistent with the law and foundation documents that will govern the institution's receipt of the gift.  The makes a form more likely to withstand a challenge from an angry relative, or during an internal dispute.

So, no matter what lawyer reviews your forms, be ready to give them a dossier of documents!

Thanks to the member out there who put up with me while I kept asking questions!

[NOTE:  For some initial background on New York's law governing museums and loaned/donated items, see Special collections not recorded on institution's ledgers]

On its face, NY Education Law 233-aa seems straightforward, but as the member's questions point out, it requires the consideration of a lot of details.

To answer the question while addressing those details, I'm going to use a story to give my answers some focus.

The Story

When I was in third grade,[1] a schoolmate brought her grandfather's shillelagh,[2] a family heirloom from Ireland, into school for "Show & Tell."

Before and after our "Show and Tell," the shillelagh was kept in my classmate's locker.

You probably know where this story is going.  At some point after "Show and Tell," the shillelagh went missing. 

I can still remember my teacher making the announcement, casting a discerning eye at my fellow third-graders, trying to pick out the criminal.[3]

To the best of my knowledge, that family heirloom has never been found.[4]  But because I am the sort of person who is very into both heirlooms and true crime mysteries, every few years, I find myself wondering where it is.[5]

But let's pretend that sometime in 1981, whoever took it that day held onto it for a bit, and then-- realizing they had no need for a hot shillelagh--hastily left it on a museum's doorstep with a note reading: "I thought you could use this, so here you go.  Sincerely, I.M. Purloiner." 

And to make my scenario work, let's further pretend the museum, finding an antique shillelagh to be within the scope of its mission,[6] accessions the item into its collection, and never hears from "I.M.  Purloiner" again.

And with that scenario to work with, let's answer these questions.

How much documentation is required for a donation to have sufficient written proof of legal transfer of ownership?

If a museum has any contemporaneous records showing that an item, when dropped off, was a "donation," unless there are circumstances to the contrary, I am comfortable saying the museum can regard the item as its own property.

In the member's scenario, that record would be a routine practice of recording items as either loans or donations.  In my scenario, there isn't quite enough (nothing shows an intent to transfer the ownership).

Of course, nowadays, there are very precise requirements for ensuring donors are aware of the terms of a gift to a museum.  For example, Education Law 233-aa (3) requires:

Prior to the acquisition of property by gift, a museum shall inform a donor or prospective donor of the provisions of this section and shall provide a donor or prospective donor with a written copy of its mission statement and collections policy, which shall include policies and procedures of the museum related to deaccessioning.

But what about, as the member writes, documentation of items from before the law was in effect?[7]  Again: if a museum can show a customary practice of accepting donations by recording them in a particular way, I believe it can make a compelling case that the title (ownership) of the piece was transferred to the museum at the time of the intake.

I base this conclusion, in part, on the law's definition of a "loan" and a "lender":

The term “loan” means a deposit of property with a museum not accompanied by a transfer to such museum of title to the property.

The term “lender” means a person legally entitled to, or claiming to be legally entitled to, property held by the museum or, if such person is deceased, the legal heirs of such person.

That said, if there is no record of how an item was accepted (as either a donation or loan), the only presumption I can endorse is that the item was a loan.

Which brings us to the member’s next question: In the collections, we have a significant number of donated items which do not appear to have deeds of gift clearly transferring title from the original owner to the museum. ...  In your reading of the Museum Property Law, should we consider such property to be undocumented, and to require similar measures to gain title?

Building on the idea that if there is clear evidence that the property was accepted as a gift--even if not through a "deed of gift" or other typical instrument--I would regard it not as "undocumented" (which means there is no reliable information as to the lender or donor), but as a donation.  On the flip side, if accepted as a loan, I would again not regard it as "undocumented," but rather, as "unclaimed" property, as contemplated by Section 7 of the Education Law 233-aa:

Unless there is a written loan agreement to the contrary, and notwithstanding any other provision of law regarding abandoned or lost property, a museum that has made a good faith and reasonable search for the identity and last known address of the lender from the museum records and other records reasonably available to museum staff may terminate a loan for unclaimed property in its possession in accordance with the provisions of this subdivision. [emphasis added]

Which brings us to the member's next question:  Regarding “unclaimed property”: How much of an effort is considered “good faith” in seeking lenders of very old loans?

There is no magic formula for "good faith" (in this context), but in general, if a museum feels it can show it has used all available resources, without undo time and expense, it should be able to demonstrate it.

The trick to "good faith" is being able to show a meaningful, genuine effort.  Does it mean a museum has to hire a private investigator to establish the identity of a person who left a shillelagh on its porch in 1981? No. But if a known lender with a known address is recently deceased, and a list of heirs can be obtained from the Surrogate’s Court in their county (for free or a nominal copying fee), should that be done? Yes.

This brings us to these final questions:

If we know that a lender is deceased, are we still required to send them certified letters?

If it is known that the lender is deceased, the letter should be addressed to their heir, if possible. 

Are we required to seek out their next of kin, and if so, are we required to continue seeking next of kin until we find a living relative?

It is not the next-of-kin, but the "heir" who should be sought (the terms are not synonymous[8]). 

How does a museum identify a deceased lender’s heir?  That information can "reasonably" be sought in the Surrogate's Court in the county of the lenders' last known residence.  And if the information isn't there, I feel comfortable saying that a documented attempt to locate it there is all that is needed to show "good faith."

Is seeking permission from next of kin actually counterproductive, in that it could open us up to a lawsuit from a non-next-of-kin heir?

As I say, because of how 233-aa defines "lender," it is not the next-of-kin who should be sought, but the "heir."   Of course, doing the right thing is never a guarantee that a museum won't be sued...but if there is a legal action, or threat of one, efforts to find the "heir" will establish a "good faith" attempt to follow the law, which will position a museum to legally defend its actions.

All of which brings me back to my classmate's missing shillelagh.  If the museum in my scenario decided it wasn't comfortable with the manner in which it was acquired, and wanted to firm up its claim to the item (or return it to its owner), that is when a museum can follow the process for "undocumented property" and publish a notice meeting the requirements of 233-aa.

I hope this walk through the details (with a shillelagh), has been helpful.

[1] Circa 1981.

[2] What's a shillelagh (pronounced "shill-lay-lee")?  It's an Irish walking stick; for more info, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shillelagh_(club).

[3] It was not me.

[4] I resisted the urge to jump on Facebook and find my former classmate to ask.  What a random, creepy question to ask after 30 years of silence.

[5] If by any chance you are reading this in the Central New York area and happen to know, please send me a note at adams@losapllc.com.

[6] The Museum of Wooden Tools?  The Museum of Walking Sticks?  The Museum of Irish Implements?

[7] 2008.

[8] This is why it is important to try and get the information from the Surrogate's Court.  A person may die and deliberately disinherit their next-of-kin, while designating other heirs.

Before I dive into this meaty and spectacular[1] question, here is a necessary disclaimer: this answer does not apply to chartered libraries.

Who does it apply to?  The following:

• New York State Education Department chartered or incorporated museums, archives, historical societies, and other non-public entities;
• Not-for-profit charitable corporations (like a "Friends of the Library");
• Clubs, fraternal organizations, benevolent societies (like a knitting club, a bike club, or athletic league).

Specifically excluded from this answer are municipal, school district, and special district libraries, because their rules of conduct must accord with state and federal requirements of due process.  Indian[2] and association libraries must also be cautious about this issue, since the law and practices that form those libraries may have express and at times unique provisions about access.[3]

So, to be clear: NO PUBLIC LIBRARIES should rely on this answer (unless you are using it to help a private museum answer questions about enforcing its code of conduct). [4]

Okay, with that established, here is the answer:

At the heart of this question is the charter (or certificate of incorporation) and bylaws of an organization. Close to the beating heart are its policies.

In New York, most not-for-profit organizations are made "official" through a filing with the NY Department of State.  However, many cultural not-for-profit organizations (including the New York Archives Conference) are made "official" via "chartering" or "incorporating" through the State Department of Ed. 

Both types of entities--"chartered" organizations, and "not-for-profit corporations"--are "real" entities, created by law. 

It is this act of creation--through charter, or incorporation--that sets the stage for how an organization gathers its participants and conducts its business...which is exactly the member's question.

So, before anything else, to determine "what legal ground we can stand on while enforcing our code of conduct" one must look at those documents, which are the key to the identity of the entity.

In this case, the Conference's certificate of incorporation[5] says nothing about membership criteria, but the Conference's Constitutions and bylaws[6] say:

3.1 Membership. Membership shall be open to all persons interested in the purposes of the Corporation. The Members and Board may establish such other criteria for membership, including a schedule of dues, as they deem appropriate.

Meanwhile the Conference's membership terms on its website[7] state:

The constitution and by-laws reflect as much as possible the traditional informality of NYAC. Traditionally, membership in NYAC has been based on attendance at an annual meeting. A single attendance put a person’s name on NYAC’s mailing list for a long time, resulting in a cumbersome list with many out-of-date addresses.

The membership year will coincide with the fiscal year of NYAC, from July through June. The annual meeting registration fee will include the membership dues (currently $15.00). For people unable to attend the annual meeting, membership dues should be sent to the NYAC treasurer to ensure receipt of the following year’s program. If, by some strange chance, a member pays the annual dues prior to conference registration in a given year, his or her registration will be reduced accordingly.

The authority of the Conference's board to adopt the criterial for membership, including adherence to a "Code of Conduct" that can apply to members (and guests), is found back in the bylaws, which state:

4.2 General Powers. In addition to specific powers delineated in the By-Laws, the Board may adopt such rules and regulations, not inconsistent with the Certificate of Incorporation, the By-Laws, or applicable laws, as it may deem proper for the conduct of its meetings and the management of the Corporation.

The "Code of Conduct" the member's question links to is one of the "rules and regulations" mentioned in Bylaws section 4.2.   

Looking at the Code, you can see that it encourages certain (welcome) behavior, and bars certain (unwelcome) behavior, with the following being used to enforce the requirements:

All participants are expected to observe these guidelines during the conference or any NYAC proceedings, including virtual settings. If you may witness or experience any inappropriate or harassing behavior please report this concern using the form below.

Dial 911 for immediate medical emergencies or to report a crime. All reports to NYAC will be followed up and taken seriously in order to protect our participants from further abuse. 

The policy then sets out multiple options for reporting, including an online form, which states:

We can't follow up on an anonymous report with you directly, but we will fully investigate it and take whatever action is necessary to prevent a recurrence.

...all of which brings us to the member's question: how can this be enforced?

First, it is important to consider just what is being prohibited. Here is the list from the Code (as stated at the bottom of the Code, this policy is inspired by Codes adopted by other archival organizations):

Unacceptable Behavior: 

NYAC does not tolerate harassment of any shape. If any participant engages in any demeaning, abusive, coercive, discriminatory, or harassing behavior, appropriate consequences will be taken against such individuals. This could result in something as minimal as a warning or more serious as being handled by the authorities. Harassers may lose privileges to the conference(s). 

• Threats or acts of violence.
• Intimidation or stalking.
• Disruption of any speakers/panelists or any conference proceedings
• Derogatory or unwelcome comments regarding a person’s race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability, lifestyle choices and practices.
• Inappropriate physical contact or unwelcome sexual attention.

Second, it is important to establish: as a not-for-profit corporation operating in New York, the New York Archives Conference already has to follow the below-listed laws:

• Conflict of Interest requirements of the Not-for-Profit Corporation law;
• (If it ever had the right amount of money or employees, or wants to meet some donor criteria) the Whistleblowing requirements of the Not-for-Profit Corporation law;
• The New York Human Rights Law (barring illegal discrimination on an array of characteristics[8]) and other civil rights laws.

So even without such a policy, there is not only authority, but could be an obligation, to receive reports of certain behavior, and deal with them as required by law. 

A good example of this, from the Code, would be derogatory comments based on sexual orientation (which could be a violation of New York's bar of sexual harassment).

Third, it is important to consider that some of the conduct listed in the Code is criminal.  Examples of that include:

• Stalking
• Threats of violence
• Unwelcome physical contact (this is of course highly fact-specific)

For instances involving the alleged commission of a crime, a report and investigation could quickly become complicated by questions such as: will the reporter want to contact law enforcement?  Does the venue have an obligation with regard to the incident?[9]   Does the Conference have evidence that could later become relevant in a criminal proceeding? 

And finally, it is important to see that this Code requires conduct that "rises above" the bare minimum set by various laws.

For instance, the Code bars interruptions, rudeness, and demeaning conduct.  While sometimes such conduct can be a part of illegal "harassment" or even "coercion," barring even one minor instance of such conduct is more about setting the professional atmosphere for the Conference, rather than simply obeying the law.

"Setting the professional atmosphere" for an organization might also be called "setting the norm."  By adopting this Code, the Conference is setting a norm of courtesy and respect, ensuring members are not interrupted or jeered when participating in Conference activities. 

So how does the board enforce this "professional atmosphere"?

I could go on and on about the law,[10] but I have 5 tips:

Tip #1: Model the behavior you require.

The best way to enforce a Code of Conduct is to ensure the leadership within the group visibly complies with it (this will also ensure compliance by directors and officers, which will help avoid legal complications).

Tip #2: Repeat the rules often.

It may leave leadership feeling like a broken record,[11] but when it comes to new norms of behavior, repetition is your friend.  It is great that the Code has its own sub-page on the Conference web site; for an event or meeting invitation, a link should be on all materials.  Conference event leaders and speakers should get at least a 15-minute orientation on how to comply with and benefit from the Code during events, meetings, and online discussion (I am a fan of training through role-play).  The board should revisit the Code at least once a year to discuss specific incidents and assess if the institution's response requires refinement. 

By repeatedly describing and addressing the norms, they will be built into the foundations of the organization.

Tip #3:  Follow through on enforcement.

The Conference's Code says "All reports to NYAC will be followed up and taken seriously in order to protect our participants from further abuse."  What does that mean? That each report must result in a final summary as to how the incident was handled.

Unfortunately, there is no one way to ensure this level of follow-through.  Some instances may be resolved simply by a discrete chat with a person to let them know that their romantic overtures are inappropriate.  Other incidents may warrant an announcement to all attendees at an event ("We received reports of numerous interruptions.  We want to emphasize that this is a violation of our Code of Conduct."), as well as more private action directed to specific individuals (a letter or warning).  Still other incidents (hopefully very rare) could result in ejection from an event and/or a report to law enforcement.

The trick is that for every report received, there be a good summary of the reported conduct, and a thorough "final summary" as to how the incident was investigated and resolved.  Again, there is no one-size-fits-all for this: some instances might be resolved with a paragraph ("The attendee was told that for the remainder of the Conference, no interruptions would be tolerated, and she agreed"), others could result in multiple pages and coordination with other organizations (for instance, if two co-workers get into a screaming match and call each other discriminatory names, be ready for lots of paperwork).

Tip #4: Have an established team, and a back-up team, to handle reports.

A reported incident under a Code of Conduct is not a trip for a part-time volunteer to fly solo.

Even if a report seems straightforward ("I sat down after presenting and PERSON gave me a long hug that made me very uncomfortable"), handling reports under this Code is not a one-person job.  There are too many variables[12] that can trip up even the most diplomatic and well-intentioned individual. 

If you are a designated report recipient, you need calm, steady back-up.  This is why having a pool of at least six people who know the Code, and are ready to respond to a report, is critical, and using no less than two people to respond to each report is also important.

Tip #5: Know when to bring in a pro.

The member has asked:

Are there any considerations for the standards we use in evaluating a complaint? What should we use for the burden of proof? To what extent are we empowered to investigate claims? What happens if someone challenges any resulting board action? Can we be sued for taking action and besmirching someone’s professional reputation?

These are excellent questions fueled by perceptive concerns; even the most professionally handled investigation with maximum due process can lead to distrust, the forming of factions, destabilization, and even (as the last question alludes) claims of liability.

How does an organization avoid that?

For a policy such as this Code of Conduct, at an all-volunteer organization, it is good to have a sense of what things can be handled in-house, and when it is time to call in an expert.

Here are some broad guidelines for when to bring in a ringer:

• If there is an allegation of criminal conduct, especially if there is an allegation of physical abuse or stalking;
• If there is an allegation that-if true-would lead to suspension or permanent ejection from the organization;
• If there is property damage.

Now, when I say "bring in a ringer," I don't mean a person to take over the whole investigation (although they may).  And I don't necessarily mean a lawyer.  I simply mean a person with the professional skills and past experience to help the organization consider issues beyond the Code, but critical to the organization: risk of personal harm, liability, legal compliance, insurance, and (a distant fifth, but still important) public relations.

For issues that are going to result in a "soft" correction ("Hi, we know people hug here on occasion, but please know that unless a person has told you it is okay to hug them, it's a Conference rule that you refrain"), there is no need to consult a pro. 

But for "hard" corrections ("After repeated warnings regarding physical contact, you continue to impose unwelcome physical contact, and we must ask you to leave the Conference immediately") it is good to quickly check in with a pro.

For example, if I was consulted on the above "inappropriate hugging leading to a ban" scenario, I would ask:

• Is/are the complainant/s injured?
• Is/are the complainant/s the recipients of the hugs, or a third party?
• When was the hugger last spoken to about this?
• Who has witnessed the behavior?
• Is the person a paid speaker or ticketed attendee?
• What dynamics are at play?
• What is the venue?

I would then work with the client to craft a swift but thorough response that ensured clear documentation of the occurrences, ruled in or out any allegation of injury or illegality (a very prolonged hug can be a criminal act, or just a very welcome gesture, depending on the details), used a risk analysis to adopt an immediate response, and developed a clear path forward to effect a resolution.

The good thing is, with the power of leadership modeling, repetition, and training, most complaints will be in the "soft consequences" zone ("I was speaking and PERSON interrupted me to tell me our approach was 'junk' and say how much better their database would handle the content; I just want to know that you have let them know that is unacceptable.").[13]

If a serious complaint does come along, there is no "catch-all" due process I can recommend for responding.  However, I can say that for each report, each response should follow this pattern:

• A written statement of the complaint (held in confidence by the Conference; there is no need to share this document with any party, and it should be considered confidential) NOTE: This is the phase where you consult an expert if things are serious;
• An initial assessment as to if the complaint is bona fide (if it isn't, you document that, and things end there, except perhaps to explore if you need to address a confabulated allegation);
• A process for collection of relevant evidence and designation of an appropriate deadline for wrapping up the process;
• A consistently applied means of evaluating the evidence;[14]
• If there is to be action based on a finding of fact, a chance for the accused party to set forth their perspective on the accusation (a private organization has no obligation to share evidence in this type of proceeding, and shouldn't, without very careful planning);
• A final summary as to how the report was resolved (a "soft" resolution simply advising an accused party of the rules, but no penalty, or a "hard" resolution with conditions imposed), and how the resolution can reinforce the norms of the Conference (does there need to be both a "private" and "public" resolution?)

In my experience, where all-volunteer organizations get in trouble is when a serious complaint (such as a complaint with injuries, or extreme rancor, or challenging harmful norms in the organization) is sat on (meaning: no action is taken, because they just don't know what to do).  This, along with early identification of risks and planning to avoid liability, is why I advise bringing in a pro for "serious" matters.

Other than the "serious" matters, having a group of board members or a volunteer committee trained and ready to nimbly and promptly address concerns under the Code will be a tremendous service to your organization.  I applaud the Conference for adopting a Code, and for thinking about the details of enforcing it.

I wish you many challenging-but-polite, innovative-but-patient, and rigorous-but-respectful events. 

Thanks for a great question.

[1] I say "spectacular" because for me, questions like this are why I was first interested in studying law.  My whole career is based on a 30-year fascination with how the law impacts what we can do and say.  When a question stands at the apex of your life's work, that is "spectacular."

[2] I know "Indian" can be a controversial term, but that is the term in the law.  In New York, the chartered Indian Libraries are The Akwesasne Library and Cultural Center the Seneca Nation Library, and the Tonawanda Indian Community Library.

[3] New York Education Law Section 253, which enables the creation of chartered libraries in New York, requires that all such libraries be "free" to their areas of service, and of course there are regulatory requirements about access, and system rules about services throughout a system, so caution is warranted when it comes to items that could curtail access to a chartered library.

[4] Shoo.  Go away.  This answer is dangerous to you!!  (Ok, you can stay...but don't use this answer).

[5] Nerd note: The Conference is not a chartered entity, but rather a corporation formed through an application to the Regents.  This means there is no charter, but rather, articles of incorporation that bring it into "life."

[6] Found on May 24, 2021 at http://www.nyarchivists.org/nyac/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/NYAC_bylaws_rev2010_final.pdf.

[7] Found on May 24, 2021 at https://www.nyarchivists.org/nyac/membership-information/.

[8] Since the Conference has no employees, their obligations will not flow from employer status, but there are still contexts where the civil rights laws will apply.

[9] For instance, if stalking takes place on a college campus--even if the Conference just rented the venue--the incident requires a very precise response by the college or university.

[10] And often do.

[11] Is "broken record" still a thing?  Perhaps we should start saying "repetition code."

[12] Gender, cultural, class, language, power balance, race, religion, and perceived bias issues, to name just a few.

[13] Just a small note: when a policy like this is first enacted, it may feel like you are getting a lot of complaints.  Actually, this will be the very normal process of a group adjusting to newly established norms.

[14] The standard choices are "preponderance of the evidence" and of course "beyond a reasonable doubt."  Either is fine, it just should be uniformly applied.