My library (municipal public library) is working on updating the meeting room policy for a number of reasons. Two major pieces of focus are what types of groups/organizations are able to request use of the meeting rooms. The other piece is requiring all meetings to be open to the public.
Currently the policy indicates that the primary use of meeting rooms are for library-sponsored activities. Any remaining time may be scheduled by nonprofit organizations for educational, cultural, or civic activities on a first-come basis. Use of this room does not constitute endorsement by the Library and must not interfere with or be disruptive to other library users.
Questions #1 - Is there a legal requirement for public libraries to limit to non-profit organizations? If not, what is the basis for limitations?
I am leaning towards shifting the mindset from limiting meeting room use to the above mentioned non-profit organizations (education, civic, cultural, etc.) and to advance public libraries in supporting local businesses and economic development in our communities.
Question #2 - Is it a legal requirement for all meetings to be open to the public?
Question #3 - Is there any benefit for the different type of meeting rooms to have different policies? Why should Large Study Rooms, Conference Rooms, and/or Meeting Rooms policies differ?
Before I answer this thoughtful array of questions, it is important to establish that aside from law, regulation, and library-specific policy, use of and access to space at public and association libraries can be governed by:
- Owner-imposed conditions[1]
- Lease agreements[2]
- Deed and zoning restrictions[3]
- Donor conditions[4]
- Grant agreements[5]
- Collaboration/affiliation terms[6]
So, before a reader tries to use this answer to tackle issues like those posed by the member, assess if any of those factors are at play in your library.
Okay. Now, IF NO OTHER CONTRACTUAL OR OTHER RESTRICTIONS IMPACT YOUR LIBRARY, OR A SPACE IN YOUR LIBRARY, here we go:
Questions #1 - Is there a legal requirement for public libraries to limit to non-profit organizations? If not, what is the basis for limitations?
No, there is no legal requirement for public libraries to limit access to space to non-profit organizations.
However, there IS a requirement for any "charitable" entity[7] in New York to not allow any of its assets to “inure” to any one individual, while non-association libraries have to follow an even stricter rule against "aid" to individual people or businesses as set by the NY Constitution (this is why a town library can't use funds to throw a big "bon voyage" party to celebrate a retiring employee, but its not-for-profit "Friends" can).
To avoid tripping over this bar on "inurement" and "aid," many libraries adopted a rule that only charitable entities can use their rooms.[8] This, however, goes beyond what is required. Rooms and space can be used by any type of person or organization...but there needs to be a rational basis related to library services and the library's plan of service, and not creating a prohibited benefit, when allowing that access.
How is that done? Examples include:
- Have a rental policy and use agreement for meeting rooms, with the fee waived for tax-exempt entities, and rental fees channeled back into maintenance of the space[9];
- Based on the assessed needs of the community, allow card-holding members of the library to reserve and "check out" multi-purpose space on an hourly basis;
- Create purpose-specific space (telehealth booth, darkroom, soundproof room, etc.) that are "checked out" like other collection assets.
Question #2 - Is it a legal requirement for all meetings to be open to the public?
No, there is no legal requirement for meetings in rented or "borrowed" space in a public library to be open to the public. However, the library must ensure that renters and borrowers do not restrict access on the basis of any protected category of identity (age, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.), or they risk a discrimination claim.
Here is an example of what I mean by "risk a discrimination claim": If I want to rent a 50-person capacity room at my public library to host a "Women In the Law" monthly meeting, and I publicly advertise the event "For Women Only,"[10] and I let the first 49 people whom I think fit the bill in at the door (while rejecting others), I am creating an exclusionary event that risks a discrimination claim...as well as a PR issue that no library wants to be a part of. [11] In other words: DO NOT DO THIS.
Contrast that with this scenario: I rent the library's 50-person capacity room to stage an event open to the public (no identity-based restrictions), but the topic of the event is a Lincoln-Douglas format "Women Shouldn't Be Lawyers: A Debate."[12] In this example, I risk a similar PR nightmare...but because access to the event is not restricted by a protected category, I do not risk a discrimination complaint based on access.
Question #3 - Is there any benefit for the different type of meeting rooms to have different policies? Why should Large Study Rooms, Conference Rooms, and/or Meeting Rooms policies differ?
Yes, there is a benefit: purpose-built rooms, with purpose-built policies based on identified needs in a library's area of service, justify how the library decides who gets access. For example, a room with no windows might be designated as the preferred space for a support group for survivor's domestic violence and others that need "discrete" space. A room with the best wiring might be the space designated for groups gathering to use technology (such as an e-sports club). A room with the best ventilation might be designated for crafts and chair yoga. And even though not required, a room could be reserved for only not-for-profit community organizations.
With this approach, a library could have a policy applicable to all rooms (requiring that all attendees follow the library's Code of Conduct), and use room-specific overlays to further set the fair and equally applied terms for access. This gives the library the flexibility to set different use privileges, while not seeming arbitrary.
Which brings me to the member's comment:
I am leaning towards shifting the mindset from limiting meeting room use to ...non-profit organizations (education, civic, cultural, etc.) and to advance public libraries in supporting local businesses and economic development in our communities.
This is the tricky part. Remember the bar on "inurement" and "aid"? It is possible to "support local businesses and economic development" without the benefits accruing specifically to one person--but a library has to be careful.
For instance, say the library wanted to have an "entrepreneur in residence" every week, providing space to new business owners to showcase their products/services, and their story.
A risky example of this would be: the library provides space in its "Entrepreneur Room," and the entrepreneur charges money for services offered on site for the week. In that scenario, the library is basically providing free space to a for-profit business, which as we discussed above, is a no-go.
A "go-go" version of this would be: based on a commitment in their plan of service, the library uses data to assess under-served or under-represented members or geographic areas of the business community.
The library then announces to the public that a business owner in the identified zone will be the "Entrepreneur in Residence" in the "Entrepreneur Room" throughout the week, to answer questions about being a business owner in their community. The library will feature information about the business, as well as its industry.
During their week in the library, the entrepreneur makes connections, showcases their product/service, and gains valuable connections and potential clients...but makes no sales on-site. However, while sharing their experience with other members of the community, they do get a boost to their business...which the library knows, because it collects follow-up data to show how the program has impacted the local business environment.
This is just one example; there are many ways to do this...and with proper planning, it won't cause issues with either a library's charitable status, or with the New York State Constitution.
Meeting room issues are tough, but a library that bases meeting room[13] access on the commitments in its plan of service, develops space-use programs based on data-derived community needs, and takes care to avoid "inurement" and "aid," can navigate these issues. Space-specific policies are not required for that, but they can help.
From the care taken by the member in writing this question, it is plain to see: it's worth it.
Thank you for a good set of questions.
[1] Many libraries occupy space they don't own, without a lease. Aside from many other risks, this can lead to the owner imposing restrictions on space without warning.
[2] A common space restriction in a lease for library space will be a bar on the space being used for anything other than "purposes of conducting library business."
[3] "Deed and zoning restriction" is a catch-all for terms the overall property (the building and land) could be subject to.
[4] For instance, if a donor leaves money to the library to create the "Needlework Room", and the library accepts the money that comes with the restriction, the room could be confined to books about needlework and related activities.
[5] Just like with donor restrictions, a grant can condition an award of money or assets on specific terms that govern a space.
[6] This is another catch-all: for example, if the library has always housed its Town archives in a room, but the terms were never formalized, is there enough in the record to make this a "restriction?"
[7] All chartered libraries in New York are considered "charitable," per State Education Law 216-a.
[8] Confession: I don't actually know for sure if this is the reason, but it's the only reason I can think of.
[9] If your library rents rooms, check with your accountant to ensure the income won't be considered as derived from "unrelated business activity."
[10] For those of you paying attention to these types of issues, you know this example is just the tip of the iceberg.
[11] If I rent the room for a private event for which I happen to personally invite only female lawyers, but I never publicly articulate a gender-based restriction, I could lessen the chance of a claim of discrimination, but in theory, the risk is still there.
[12] To this notion, I say: Belva Lockwood.
[13] All of this can apply to outdoor space, too.