Recently Asked Questions

We were recently reviewing our reconsideration procedure and form. One of my trustees has completed a training on book bans and challenges. The presenter (Jamie LaRue) recommended that the library requires the book (or item) have been read (viewed or listened to) fully by the patron in order to submit a request.

It made sense to my trustee (and, personally, me) that, since we would now have to put in the time to read it fully, they should too. But, I was concerned if we could require that.

So, initially I checked with other directors, and I think only one said that they required it. Most, if not all ask, as we do. Another said they use the patron’s answer to help inform their own decision. Another said no, the patron would probably just lie. Another director wrote: “ALA OIF [Office for Intellectual Freedom] routinely advises libraries that: ‘The reconsideration process should be completed in its entirety and not subverted or ended prematurely, leaving the library open to legal challenge.’ So requiring that might open the library up to accusations of not completing the process, especially if that point was not explicitly covered within the reconsideration policy.” So, what are your thoughts?

Recently, a page at the library made some comments that were less than flattering about how the local town was handling a new subdivision. The town supervisor came to me (we are an association library and not part of the town government) and asked if our personnel handbook had any language about social media use. He shared that the town personnel handbook had a clause about not disparaging the town when you are an employee. Our handbook does not have specific language on this matter, instead stating that “Appropriate use of the Internet, email and social media is expected.” (There are more clauses about how and when to use the libraries social media, but this seems to be the only line about personal social media)

He and I discussed the matter further and he made a suggestion that the library should look in to whether or not a non-disparagement clause should be part of our social media policy. I got the impression he further thinks that should apply to our major funders (mostly, the town).

How, if at all, should libraries handle personal social media use by employees, especially in regards to usage that might disparage the library or the town that funds us?

The library has been discussing new ways to handle our discards. A senior staff member of a very significant local library told us recently that they donate their discards to the Internet Archive. A staff member here expressed concerns with IA scanning and making publicly available on their website copyrighted materials, and concern for liability on our part for contributing to potentially illegal activity. The staff member wondered if only materials free from copyright concerns should be donated. At this point we are not looking to create a digital library as IA has done for many organizations, but just simply to donate the material for them to use as they see fit in hopes of the material being used for the greater good. Should we have any concerns with donating our discards to IA? Thanks for helping us sort-out this concern.

Within the context of recent regional school book challenges, much of the attention has been focused on print collections. However, librarians and school districts have started to look at digital content, too.

Sora is the K-12 platform used by many students and staff in NYS to access OverDrive content (as opposed to Libby, which is used by public library patrons). In Sora, content access levels can be implemented to restrict access to content.

Here is how OverDrive defines content access levels:

Content access levels let you control which types of users can view and borrow certain titles in your digital collection. Content access levels are customizable and can be different from the publisher-defined audience label.

Note: In the Libby app, users will be able to see all titles in your digital collection, regardless of content access levels. If a user tries to borrow a book that's restricted by content access level, the checkout won't be completed and the user will get an error message.

Content access levels are designed to let you manage access to titles based on age-appropriateness. Users are assigned a user type ("Adult," "Young Adult," or "Juvenile") when you set up authentication (for schools) or based on library card type (for libraries). Users can access titles at or below their access level:

"Adult" users can access all titles
"Young Adult" users can only access titles you label "Young Adult" or "Juvenile"
"Juvenile" users can only access titles you label "Juvenile"

A title's content access levels, which are assigned by you, may be different from the title's audience, which is assigned in its metadata by the publisher.
 

I am wondering if restricting digital access to content by grade level and/or to individual student could/would be another "creative work around" to limit access that may or may not be outside of board policy?

A recent article appeared in a local newspaper that was describing the local efforts of a group called Moms for Liberty to have certain books removed from school libraries because the group consider the titles to be inappropriate for school age children. However, the language used and quoted in the article, including “#Porninschools Exposed" and that they found over 80 titles that should be given an "R" rating seems as if it could be construed as an accusation against school libraries that they are distributing materials to minors that are prohibited by law. The article also quoted the group as intending to get people "outraged" by posting excerpts from books they consider objectionable. I would like to know if the school librarians facing these kinds of accusations have any recourse to bring action against the organization or individuals within the organization making these kinds of possibly slanderous and libelous accusations.