Recently Asked Questions (RAQs)

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?

My library knows that service animals provide vital assistance to patrons with disabilities, and that they must be allowed on library premises without pre-approval.

We also know that when a service animal is brought into the library by a visitor, we can only ask if the animal is needed for a disability, and what work or task it has been trained to provide.

We also know that some disabilities are not easily observed, and not every person using a service animal will be perceived as having a “real” disability.

Our library is small and we prohibit all animals—other than service animals—for a combination of reasons (including cleanliness, allergies, and fear).

Our question is this: we have a patron who we think is faking it. The patron sometimes comes in with a dog, and based on a variety of factors, it seems the patron is bringing in the dog not to accommodate a disability but to taunt staff members and dare them to confront this patron. What can we do?

My school district public library system just reviewed a new (April 25th, 2024) NY Education Department Decision by the Commissioner, addressing the proper procedure for evaluating school library books. What does this decision mean for school libraries and school library systems?

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?

A member library has the following questions concerning libraries that are subject to Open Meetings Law (OML) and have adopted Robert’s Rules of Order for their meetings:
1. Are consent agendas allowed for agencies subject to OML?
2. Should public or association libraries refrain from having their Boards of Trustees accept the financials (motion, second, vote) presented by the library’s treasurer so as not to give the appearance of agreement and assurance that they are accurate and without error?
3. If there is a board committee that, per the bylaws, is not given the power to act independently o[f] the board, is it permissible for a member of such a committee to make a motion to be followed by discussion and vote without a second?
4. From the perspective of OML or others that you know are relevant for the library is it legally acceptable for a board chair to make a motion?