Recently Asked Questions (RAQs)

A patron came in and asked me to “witness a signature.” He was signing some bank document, but it didn’t need to be notarized, just witnessed. I realized he wasn’t signing his name, and when I asked him about it, he said that it was his aunt’s name and he had a Power of Attorney - he showed me those documents, so I ended up signing as a witness. But I felt uncomfortable about it. My understanding is if you have a POW, you should be signing your own name, not forging the signature of that other person. I asked my wife who is an attorney about it, and she said I shouldn’t have signed as a witness. This is a regular patron of ours, so I’m concerned not only that this will come up again, but that I will get pushback if I refuse to sign as a witness.

We are a small, rural, association library that serves a population of under 4,500. We recently received an Abuse or Molestation Exclusion from our general liability/property insurance company. It states that the Abuse or Molestation Exclusion on our policy has been replaced with a new "Broad" Abuse or Exclusion, which applies regardless of whether the abuse or molestation occurs while in the care, custody or control of any insured. Basically, we have no coverage in the case of any abuse or molestation claim made against a staff member. Our library has 21 security cameras throughout our facility, including any room where a staff member might be alone with children. We have a strict policy where a staff member is never to be alone one-on-one with a child. We have a Child Safety Policy in place. We also have Directors and Officers insurance, Employment Practices Liability insurance, as well as Workmans Comp coverage. We've had our insurance agent look into a separate Sexual Abuse Molestation (SAM) policy but it is quite expensive. Is it necessary for libraries to purchase an additional SAM policy, if we have taken these extra precautions?

Background: On Jan 1, 2023 we instituted several changes to employee time off accrual policies. We constructed the new vacation accrual policies carefully and gave some of our more senior staff "legacy policies" in order to not decrease any current employee's vacation accrual rate. However, we DID institute a cap on the number of vacation hours an employee could bank at any given time (1/2 a year for FT staff, and 1/4 yr FTE for PT staff). We did this for two reasons: 1) to mitigate financial risk to our library in the event of unforeseen separations, when we pay out any unused vacation time, and 2) to encourage staff to take regular vacations, which prevents burnout and encourages us to understand each other's job responsibilities better when covering for someone else.

Unfortunately, the vacation cap has had some unintended consequences. Some staff members are reticent to take vacation and are bumping up against the cap each month, which effectively means their compensation is being reduced. Also, our PT staff work varying number of hours per week (20-32) but we don't prorate the PT vacation cap (for logistical reasons), which makes it difficult for staff who work close to FT hours to save up enough time to take a longer vacation, or multiple vacations in a relatively short period.

My legal question is: If we were to change our time off accrual policy to allow staff to bank as much vacation as they like but specify that upon separation they could only be paid out 'x' number of hours, could we be accused of wage theft?

The [NAME REDACTED] Public Library has a materials selection policy in place. When recently updating the policy, trustees had questions about the "responsibility" section which states:

"Authority and responsibility for the selection of library resources is delegated to the Library Director by the Board of Trustees. At the discretion of the Library Director, staff who are qualified by reason of education, training and experience are given the responsibility to select resources within the framework of this policy."

The question we have is should the word "delegated" be used in this context. The Handbook for Library Trustees includes sections stating that the board is legally responsible for all aspects of the library as an institution and have broad and almost exclusive powers and authority to administer the library. We wonder if the delegated section is correct, or if the responsibility section should just say that the Library Director is responsible for the selection of library resources.

Hello,

At [our] Public Library, we don't allow patrons to bring their bikes into the library. Our Teen Services Librarian suggested we purchase bike locks to loan patrons because often patrons, especially the teens/tweens, don't have bike locks and are nervous about leaving them outside unattended. We rent our space, so the park outside our Main Street entrance and the nearby bike "rack" (more of a giant U-bolt) is not ours.

So, I have a couple concerns:
*What is our liability if we provide a bike lock that fails or the bike rack fails?
*How do we ensure that our bike lock is accessible to those who have disability, from limited vision to fine motor skills impairment.