Management

There are a lot of little details to address in considering this question, but first, there is one big principle I must emphasize. When it comes to records retention—and especially when it comes to employee-related records—nothing should be discretionary.

In other words, if an employer wants to create a process where every corrective action plan,[1] performance evaluation, employment-related investigation, or incident report is removed after its minimum retention period has elapsed, that is fine. However, unless it is a benefit that has been carefully negotiated and confirmed in a contract,[2] there should be no process for an employee to initiate optional removal of materials, and by no means should that process require the employer to make a “yes” or “no” decision.

The moment personnel records that could be interpreted as “negative” become subject to an employee-initiated, optional procedure, the employer, simply by having such a procedure, has: 1) admitted that possibility that the materials could have a negative impact on the employee; 2) created a system where such material could be retained inadvertently; and 3) set up a scenario where such a request could accidentally or deliberately be denied or perceived as somehow subject for debate, potentially triggering the possibility of a complaint, litigation, or a damage claim.[3]

Unless retention is being considered for historic/archival purposes, record retention or destruction should never be discretionary (and of course, the decision to retain certain records for historic/archival purposes should be based on objective criteria).  The best approach for management of employee performance-related records is simply that they be retained as required, or be purged when no longer needed, based purely on the category (not the substance) of the records’ content.[4]

So, my answer to this question is: there should be no process for an employee to request optional removal of negative materials from a personnel file. Rather, the removal of material from personnel files should only happen per uniformly and routinely applied policy.[5]  If a negative review or incident report has served its purpose and is no longer needed,[6] it may be removed as part of the routine purging policy and process. If it is still needed, it should be retained.  There should be no middle ground; it creates risk.  If your library is part of a collective bargaining agreement or uses contracts that include this approach, employees should all be notified and trained on how to exercise these rights.

Thank you for an insightful question.

 

---

[1] Just in case you are new to the Human Resources world, a “corrective action plan” is a time-limited plan with a clearly articulated goal and measurable steps to address a performance concern.  Here is an example of a properly formulated Corrective Action Plan, taken from my domestic life: “To ensure optimal vegetable growth and family cohesion, for the next eight weeks, every family member will spend no less than ten minutes weeding per day.  To enable verification, family members will place uprooted weeds on the Stick Pile.”  Now, here is an improperly formulated version: “If you Ingrates don’t help me in the garden today, I will put a dead thistle by your pillow tonight.”  Both techniques can, of course, yield results, but only one wins the “Happiest Workplace” award.

[2] Of course, a collective bargaining agreement could create the right to request removal of accurate information from a personnel file.  Again, however, because such a discretionary approach might not be exercised or even known by all employees, I don't see this as a fair or helpful clause (to either employees, or the employer).  A better option would be a simple records purge, or a purge tied to an objective performance metric (“after three years of ‘satisfactory’ reviews, this Corrective Action Plan will be removed from the employee’s record”).

[3] These are all the “little details” I mention in the opening sentence, but as you can see, they aren’t so little.

[4] With all due consideration of privacy.

[5] This could include, by the way, a Corrective Action Plan process with a “self-destruct” measure for the guts of the “negative” issue.  In other words, the CAP policy itself could say “Upon satisfactory completion of a Corrective Action Plan, after # years, the only record retained will be the summary note confirming successful completion of a Plan of Improvement.”  But again, this should be per a uniformly applied policy, not a discretionary request.

[6] By “needed,” I mean, among other things, that proof of the remedial action taken by the employer is no longer required to protect the employer.  While many policies base this on statutes of limitations, most only start the clock after the employee’s period of employment is over, and that, in my view, is generally the most prudent choice.

This question seems simple, but it actually involves some high-end concepts of business law and liability.[1]

Most libraries, museums, theaters, and other units within large institutions are actually part of the same entity.  In other words, although they may have a distinct identity within their institution (“The Michael  Library” “The Peter Museum” or “the Catherine Gym”), there is only one actual legal entity (“Romanov College”).

Many people find these niceties hard to grasp, but here is why it is important: in this scenario, the single entity (the college) includes the on-campus copy shop.  This means that what the shop does, the entity does…including alleged infringement.[2]

This same unity generally applies to employees, too.  In a body of law called “Master and Servant,”[3] if an employee is performing a task related to their job, and not deliberately violating employer policy or the law,  for purposes of the legal system, the employee’s actions will generally[4] be imputed to the institution. 

This is why institutions are best served in this area by educating their employees about copyright, and documenting the employees good-faith efforts[5] to abide by the law (it is also why many HR manuals have warnings about the consequences of not following policy: it limits the institution’s ability to protect you).

This puts lot of pressure on the employees who staffing the in-house copy shop. What are their responsibilities?  Do they need to educate their co-workers on copyright risk?  Are they expected to protect the entire college?  Each institution has different policies and job descriptions that answer those questions differently.

That said, is there a simple approach that can help with this?  Yes.  For the in-house copy shop (NOT for an on-campus contractor), below is a framework to address copyright priorities with diplomacy, tact, and helpfulness.  It is designed to be used with an institution’s “Fair Use Assessment” form, and to route people to the person responsible for permissions at your institution[6]. 

NOTE:  All that said, any copyright-related form not custom-designed for your organization should be reviewed for cohesion and consistency with other institutional policies, including those in the employee manual.  Never use any copyright-related form without considering your institution’s unique needs and approach to copyright and liability!  If your institution has an in-house lawyer, compliance officer, risk manager, or insurance carrier, make sure they are part of finalizing any such form or solution. 

[INSTITUTION NAME] COPY SHOP COPYRIGHT HELPER

Hello!  Thank you for coming to the [INSTITUTION NAME] copy shop to arrange duplication of your class materials.

As an instructor who generates your own copyright-protected material, you know the value of copyrights to others, and you know there are penalties for improper, unauthorized duplication.

Please follow the process below.  When you check “yes” to 1 or 3, we are happy to assist you with your copies!

1. Do you have written permission from the copyright holder or their agent to make copies?

• Yes
• No

If “yes,” attach the permission, and let’s get copying!

If “no,” please move to question 2.

2.  Do you have verbal permission from the copyright holder or their agent to make copies?

• Yes
• No

If “yes,” please confirm the permission in writing, return to us and check “yes,” above, and we’ll get right on this for you!

If “no,” please move to question 3.

3.  Do you regard this copy as a fair use?

• Yes
• No

If “yes,” please fill out the attached [INSTITUTION NAME] fair use assessment form, and we’ll get your copies made!

If “no,” or “I don’t know,” please move to question #4.

4.  Do you find this process frustrating and need help arranging permission to use this material, or more input on fair use?

• Yes
• No

If “yes,” please see XXXX at OFFICE LOCATION, who assists with permissions at INSTITUTION NAME.  You can also call them at NUMBER or reach them at EMAIL.  We hope to see you again soon!

DATE:___________________________

SIGNATURE:___________________________

PRINT NAME:______________________________

MATERIALS (Title, number of pages):_______________________________

 

---

[1] Fun!

[2] This is one of the reasons many institutions opt to host a separate company for on-campus duplication services.

[3] I know!  The law needs to move on.  Perhaps “Captain” and “team member” can replace this.

[4] That said, never assume that is the case!  Every allegation of liability must be carefully reviewed by a lawyer, as there are many exceptions and precise formulas that control such things.

[5] Demonstrable, good-faith effort to abide by the law can actually limit damages when copyright infringement is attributable to a not-for-profit education institution.

[6] If you don’t have either or one of these, share this RAQ with the decision-maker at your institution who could make that happen.  Both the form, and a person who can facilitate permissions, are worthwhile risk management investments.

 

I have good news, and bad news. 

First, the bad news: most of the legal factors involved do not support this type of “job share.” 

Now, for the good news: the type of capacity-adding at the heart of the member’s question is feasible…with a slightly different legal structure.

What are the legal steps to creating such an arrangement?  For chartered libraries, they are numerous and intricate, but considering the goal (added service), the work might be worth it. 

Here are the factors to consider:

1.  The libraries’ chartered identity

The question cites a potential collaboration between a municipal and an association library.  Just in that coupling, there are issues, since depending on entities’ size and type, the institutions will have different staffing requirements.  When considering a capacity-adding staffing model, those requirements should be kept in mind at all times.

2.  The libraries’ bylaws and staffing policies

Staffing requirements and other factors impacting staffing might be recited in the libraries’ bylaws and policies.  So those documents, too, should be factored into this exercise.

3.  The libraries’ plan(s) of service

Does the resulting staffing schema fit into their respective plans of service? 

4.  Labor law details, such as workers’ comp, unemployment, FMLA, and ADA

Here is where the technical nitty-gritty, and the concerns that generally bar “shared” staff between separate entities, starts.  Whenever an employee is brought on to work at more than one legal entity, it is important to confirm who would actually be the employer, so the arrangement complies with state and federal labor regulations. 

One example of why this is important is workers’ compensation.  Per New York state law, if a worker sustains an injury on the job, that worker is covered by “comp,” and the employer is indemnified for (almost) any personal injury claim.  This protects both the employee (who gets some wage/salary continuance) and the employer (who generally does not face additional liability for the injury).  In a truly “shared” employee arrangement, with debatably two (or more) employers, the resulting ambiguity could result in a contested or denied coverage claim.

Another example of how a “dual employer” arrangement could be risky is revealed by  considering the American with Disabilities Act (ADA).  Under the ADA, employers are responsible for providing employees with reasonable accommodations for permanent and temporary disabilities; failure to do so can result in serious liability (and fines).  But with a “shared” worker, it can be tough to know who would have that responsibility…and be responsible for failing to follow the law.

There are many more reasons along these lines.

5.  Salary equity and benefits-related details

This is a critical one, because employees who are not treated equitably in comparison to other employees can have an array of legal claims.  Examples abound: If one library offers more paid time off than the other, how do the libraries offer the “shared” employee a fair and legally compliant arrangement?  If the libraries have different systems for evaluation and promotion, how does the employee advance?  If one library is found to be treating a particular class of employee unfairly, does that impact the other library?  While minimal staffing at the employing institutions might limit some of these concerns, even if there is one other part-time staffer to compare to, ambiguity could turn into liability.

6.  The actual legal relationship between the libraries and the “shared” employee

From the legal perspective, this is where the rubber hits the road.  For the reasons set out above (and many others), it would be almost impossible for both libraries be “joint,” employers: even if possible, it would likely be too risky.  But with another legal relationship, this resource-sharing might be feasible.

What is that “legal relationship?”  Well, it would depend, but the most feasible solution would likely be one library hiring an employee specifically to add to the capacity of other libraries.  In this model, there would be no “shared,” employment; rather, the first library would offer their employees as extra capacity on a contractual basis. 

In such a “Capacity Contract” scenario, money paid by the second (or third) library would not be a salary/benefit contribution, but rather, a fee for services (that happened to help pay for the salary and benefits of a full-time librarian).  The relationship would need to be carefully set out in a detailed contract and hiring documents that confirmed how any performance evaluation, employee discipline, civil rights, personal injury, and other claims would be handled.  And the factors I list above (starting with the identity of both libraries, and considering the various regulatory, bylaw, and policy obligations they have) would have to be assessed to see if it was even feasible.  Most critical would be: is adding to the capacity of others consistent with the hiring library’s plan of service?

With careful planning by leadership and trustees,[1]and input from an attorney and HR professional, this type of “shared” staffing could be built.  The end result would be:

• a careful documented analysis of the relevant factors;
• a carefully developed job description for the capacity-adding employee;
• a contract between the library or system providing the additional resource and the library served. 
• Hopefully, many more patrons served!

As I said at the beginning, this could be a fair amount of work.  But if it provides a small library with access to specific expertise and a diversity of talent it might otherwise not be able to afford, it could be worth it.  Just approach the details with care.

Thank you for this important question.

---

[1] In addition to those considerations, although it is not legal, I feel I must mention a quasi-political or strategic element. As we know, once taxpayers, municipal leadership, and other entities see cost-cutting, it is hard to close Pandora’s (newly efficient) box.  So while it is not a legal consideration, per say, being mindful of how any innovations in staffing efficiency will play out long-term is wise.  You don’t want a clever solution to become the tool of a permanent budget cut!

 

Before we address what may be the clear signs of a dysfunctional relationship between a library and its "Friends," let's explore the basis for the Library-Friends arrangement.

A public library, hemmed in by many laws, regulations and pressures governing fiscal operations, often enters into a cooperative agreement with a "Friends" group--an independent, usually "501(c)(3)"[1] corporation who can raise and spend money unburdened by such obligations.

Here's an example of how this works:

A town's library wants to create a special collection on "Local African-American Heritage"…a project that will be done in collaboration with a noted Black historian, the Black Studies department of a nearby college, and the archivist of a historically Black church in the town.  The initial $10,000.00 donation to kick off the collection was left to the Friends by a donor in their will.

The Library and Friends create a joint committee to make the special collection happen.  As envisioned by the joint committee, the project will involve renovation of a room in the library previously used for community meetings, as well as the acquisition of a wide range of books, museum-quality and ADA-compliant signage for the walls, and an oral history project housed on special interactive technology.  The library's staff will receive special training on the resources and the room.

The new section's "Grand Opening" will feature a keynote speaker who some town residents find controversial.  After the ribbon is cut (the Friends already own giant scissors) the Friends will host an off-site catered reception featuring a local rapper, which donors, trustees, project collaborators, staff and the media can attend for free.

Through careful planning by the joint committee, the details, budget, procurement procedures, and contracts for the room and opening events have been determined, and the bills are being paid entirely by the Friends.  However, the contracts involved are not so simple.

The construction contracts were bid and had to follow all applicable procurement laws and regulations.  The invoices for the new books are only in the name of the library.  The off-site venue and catering contracts are only in the name of the Friends, but the contract expressly "holds harmless" the library.[2]  And although her speech will be in the new room, the contract for the speaker is only in the name of the Friends…a tactic used to avoid community accusations that taxpayer money was spent to generate controversy.[3]

How does a library and its Friends reach this high-functioning ideal of collaboration?  It takes a well-crafted (and periodically re-evaluated) Collaboration Agreement,[4] sound policies, and  routine, informed communication by both sides.  This isn't to say there won't be a spat or two.  But with a commitment to those things, a library-Friends relationship can be appropriately challenging, while reaching a productive ideal.

The questions posed by the member show what can happen when things are less than "productively ideal."  They sound like symptoms of a problem I call "Friends Drift."

"Friends Drift" is where a previously strong relationship (or perhaps one that was never so strong), leads a library and its Friends to drift so far apart, they cease to collaborate effectively.  As a result, the types of great programming and support the relationship was forged to create cease to materialize.

What does "Friends Drift" look like?  It can have any number of causes and symptoms, but here are some solid hallmarks:

• Collaboration Agreement doesn't exist;
• Collaboration Agreement is over 7 years old without any revision in the past 7 years;
• Collaboration Agreement can't be found by newer leadership and no one has initiated a step to draft a new one;
• Prior operations depended solely on personal relationships and not written policy, so new members don't have a roadmap to proceed;
• Lack of policy between the two groups for approving expenditures and fiscal planning;
• Lack of routine productive meetings between the two groups;[5]
• Lack of separate but coordinated strategic planning;
• Lack of clarity about payment and fund-raising procedures;
• Friends board making decisions that are the purview of the library board (or visa-versa);
• Distrust and questioning propriety of the other's operations (as seen in the member's questions).

In the example provided by the member, the "Friends Drift" is so serious, the library is even wondering if the Friends are in compliance with State and Federal laws. 

This is particularly worrisome because as not-for-profit, charitable organizations, the fiscal and operational integrity of both a library and its Friends should NEVER be something one has to speculate about.  In New York, a public library must file an annual report with the Comptroller, while its Friends group must file both a "CHAR500" with the New York Attorney General and a form 990 with the IRS.[6]

Those mandatory filings should provide everything needed for mutual assurance fiscal responsibility and transparency.  If there is uncertainly even if those things are done, something has gone astray.

Which brings us to the member's specific questions, which I need to modify a bit, in order to provide accurate answers.

The first question is about whether a Friends group can withhold money from the library when the library asks for it. 

The answer to that is: YES, that might be okay.  In fact, it is often perfectly appropriate (and sometimes, highly advisable) for a Friends group not to pay for certain things for its affiliated library.  For instance, while this is a critical factor to be decided only by the library and agreed to by the Friends, I would encourage any library to think twice (and twice again) before using a Friends group to routinely supplement an annual operating budget.  In that same vein, a Friends group shouldn't pay (at least, not before deep and critical policy and fiscal analysis) a regular cost-of-living adjustment for staff salaries. 

Why? Because this type of predictable, routine expense is something that should be built into the base operating budget, and supported by the sponsoring tax base(s).[7]  While community budget battles aren't always pretty, they are an essential connection to your area of service.  Having Friends underwrite routine expenses to meet the library's basic Plan of Service is a potentially bad habit.  In my opinion, it is something an experienced Friends group will meet with resistance.

So, what are Friends for?  To put it in baking terms, they are for two things: whipping up delicious and beautiful frosting, and going from cupcake to cake.

The "frosting," is all the "extras" that are really flavorful essentials: speakers, new collections, special programming, or perhaps a really cool new set of carts or 3-D printer.  They should be highly visible and make things better…just like lovely pink frosting on top of a chocolate cupcake (and just like the frosting, they could actually be a huge factor in the appeal of the cupcake, and have more calories - I mean, cost more money).

And the journey from "cupcake to cake"?  That's a capital campaign.  Need a new building?  Hoping to expand?  Want to build a green roof with solar?  One-time physical upgrades are great candidates for "Friends" generosity and work, where the money can supplement a state grant or bond issue, or even take on the whole nut.

That's what Friends are for.[8]

Which bring us to the next (slightly modified) question: what if "Friends" funds aren't being released at all?  Can that risk their status at a not-for-profit?

Although there are some things Friends might not pay for, I can say with just as much assurance that any organization built solely around the well-being of a library, that does not use its resources for its not-for-profit purpose, is going to have some serious concerns.  And yes, those concerns could impact its charitable and 501(c)(3) status.

To diagnose those concerns, an attorney for the library (or the Friends) would need to review the group's charter, bylaws, recent CHAR500's and 990's, and (if possible) board minutes and correspondence with the sponsored library.  If there is a Cooperation Agreement, that should be reviewed.  The method of requesting funds, and the basis for the refusal should be assessed.  And of course, any exigent circumstances (were the Friends the victim of a theft?  Did they not meet their fund-raising goals?  Did they not yet conduct their audit?) would have to be considered.

Depending on what was found, legal action based on a violation of the Agreement could be threatened/brought by the sponsored Library, or a complaint to the New York Attorney General Charities Bureau or the IRS could be lodged.  If things get to that point, it's likely the relationship is highly adversarial, and each party would have brought in a lawyer. 

Now, I like lawyers.  Being one, I see their value, and I never hesitate to recommend when I think a party needs to consult one.  After all, it's how I make my living.

That said, if a library and their Friends are experiencing "Friends Drift" of the type discussed above, and its looking like things will get ugly, I recommend after initially working with their lawyers, the two groups consider using a mediator, not two adversarial lawyers, to help sort things out.

Now, when I say "mediator," I don't mean just any nice, neutral person who is willing to listen to both parties and help out. I mean a trained professional who knows the law and the obligations faced by both sides (likely a lawyer with not-for-profit experience), who can help them assess their mutual goals, and get their relationship on the right track. 

In some cases, the mediation could be a respectful, productive "airing of the grievances" used to diagnose the problems and craft a new (or a first) Cooperation Agreement.  In simpler cases, it could mean merely solidifying the functions of the groups' committees or developing some healthy new policies and procedures.

How does a mediation get set up?

A mediation is always conducted per a written "Mediation Agreement" that sets out the obligations of the mediator and the parties (a big one being confidentiality of the proceedings, another being the neutrality of the mediator and the willingness of the parties to proceed "in a spirit of mutual problem-solving").  The Mediation Agreement should also establish clear goals for the process (such as "…in furtherance of the mission of both parties, a session to discover and confirm shared procedures for the planned payment of certain library expenses") and defined results ("…the final product shall be a new/revised Cooperation Agreement to meet the needs of the parties for the next five years.").

A county's local bar association usually maintains a list of trained mediators.  That said, for an exercise like this, not only mediation experience knowledge of libraries and not-for-profits is essential.  The price tag for such a session could be anywhere from $1000-$50000 (with costs shared equally by the parties), but when compared with the costs for one party to hire a lawyer to go on the offensive, and the other to play defense - with nothing created but bad feelings and complaints in the end - as an investment, it may be worthwhile. 

This is especially true since--unless something truly nefarious[9] is suspected - "Friends Drift" is generally the result of good people caught up in the complicated web of not-for-profit operations, and not knowing quite what they can and should do.  But good intentions don't automatically translate into knowing how to run a compliant not-for-profit.  And when people try to wing it, trouble can start.

This is why the library-Friends relationship[10] can be fraught with fiscal drama, and "Drift," even when all good people are involved. 

The member's questions show how this drama - and Drift - can take up a lot of staff and volunteer energy, and cause a lot of stress.  Working to maintain good relations, and perhaps using a mediator when relations are strained, can be the best way to harness that energy for the library and its Friends…and thus, for the entire community.

Thank you for a difficult question on an under-discussed topic.

---

[1] Meaning: donations to the group are tax-deductible, while operations are limited to its not-for-profit purpose.

[2] The library's pesky lawyer insisted on this, since the library is involved in the event.

[3] I know many taxpayers don't really care about the "Friends/Library distinction," but it never hurts to try to keep them distinct.

[4] It doesn’t have to be called a "Collaboration Agreement," but every library and friends combo should have a written contract that addresses how they operate together.

[5] The sad fact is, board committees can meet regularly and get nothing done (in other words, be "unproductive").  Signs of an unproductive board/committee meeting are: 1) big ideas are discussed but nothing is acted upon, 2) there are few if any anticipated resolutions for action items, and 3) a lack of clear objectives set at one meeting for action by the next meeting.

[6] I imagine there are tiny exceptions to this but in such a case, there would be other requirements for fiscal transparency.

[7] I am a lawyer, not a library budget specialist.  This is a good topic to visit with your library system…they are there for you on all things tax levy and budget!

[8] Yes, I have that song stuck in my head now.

[9] By "nefarious" I mean suspected embezzlement, conflicts of interest, fiduciary neglect, or other issues that aren't just disconnects, but possible wrongdoing by a Friends board.  If those are suspected, a Library should work with their lawyer on next steps.

[10] Libraries, you're not alone.  This is a problem in religious organizations, social clubs, and other volunteer-driven organizations…although the people in library disputes might be better at trivia games and have larger vocabularies.

 

Every employer struggles with this issue: give employees enough access to electronic information to do their jobs, but protect that information from accidental disclosure, file corruption, and theft.

Solid practices like routine security updates, back-ups, password re-sets, and employee training can help a library avoid the worst IT disasters.  But what if someone in a position of trust simply abuses their access?  What if a scenario like the member's question should arise?

There is a process to address this type of scenario.  In order to ease an adrenalized mind,[1] it is presented below in grid form.

Upon suspicion that files have been removed or inappropriately removed by a former library employee, follow these steps to assess what recourse a board might have:

Action	Why you do this	Results
1.  Upon suspicion that files have been removed, if possible, do not take further steps alone. Create an "Initial Response Team" of at least two people to do the next four steps, and designate one of them as the note-taker and document-keeper. If your library's computer system is supplied or supported by a cooperative library system, one of these people should be from the system.[2] Organizing a time-line and take photos or screenshots of information showing the potential problem.	The facts you assemble and first steps you take may have far-reaching consequences for your library's response and recovery, as well as for the potential wrong doer. At this stage, however, you'll just be documenting what appears to be missing.  No deep-dive investigation.   It should only take an hour or two.[3]	Initial Response Team formed and responsibilities of team members made clear. Note-taker assembling information.
2.  Without letting it take more than an hour (or two) and without making any changes to your system, assess and create an informal list of what appears to be missing (file types, specific types of information, locations), when this was noticed, and what the first signs of the concern were.  This will be your "Initial Inventory."	You need to have a foundation for your next steps, so you're creating a quick description of the possible situation.	An Initial Inventory you will use in the next few steps. Note: The "Initial Inventory" is not an attempt to assess what happened, just to list what might be missing, and a few initial details.
3.  Look over the Initial Inventory.  Could any of the missing files contain personal/private information, such as: name, address, date of birth, ssn, library card number, credit card information, contact information, banking information, health-related information, computer use, passwords, or circulation records?	If the answer is "yes," add the phrase "…possibly includes loss or compromise of private information and/or library patron records" to the Initial Inventory.	This part of the Initial Inventory will help those assessing the issue quickly appreciate the possible privacy and confidentiality  implications of the situation.
4.  Contact the library's insurance carrier, and alert them that you may have had a loss of data related to "unauthorized computer access that may involve a former employee." If your Initial Inventory includes a "yes" to Step #3, also state: "The situation may have involve personal and confidential information." If your initial contact is by phone, confirm the notice via a letter or e-mail.	Depending on your library's insurance type, you may be covered for this type of event. Notifying your carrier and following up in writing will help the library determine if the carrier will provide coverage and/or assistance for the event.	Timely notice to the library's insurance carrier, enabling your carrier to let you know if you have coverage and if they can provide assistance in recovering from the event. NOTE:  If the event is covered, some or all of the remaining steps could be impacted by the participation of the carrier.
5.  With the Initial Inventory complete and the carrier on notice, the board (or director, if the board has delegated the right amount of authority to them) must decide who is in charge of next steps: the full board, a board committee, the Director and a team, or any combination of people needed to assess the matter.  This "Response Team" should have the power to appoint a qualified professional to assess the situation, to retain legal assistance if warranted, and to recommend a final course of action to the board. In no event should a report to the board (or Executive Committee) extend the timeline for arranging a response beyond 3 business days.	Unauthorized computer access involving a former director (or any employee) is serious enough to warrant board involvement, whether or not personal and confidential information. This is especially true since, in a worst-case scenario, the library may have to report a data breach, expend resources to re-create or retrieve the information, work with an insurance carrier to recover from the loss, consider if any aspects of the former employee's contract or severance apply (if there was either/or) and based on what is discovered, consider whether or not to file a report with law enforcement.	Clarity as to who is in charge, what level of authority they are working with, and who they will bring on to assist with the investigation and recovery.
6.  Alert the library's lawyer by sending them a copy of the Initial Inventory, and connect them to the Response Team, so they can assist at needed.	It will be the lawyer's responsibility to work with the Response Team and others to ensure the library is positioned to seek relief from the carrier or the former employee, to assess any relevant contracts (for instance, if the files were deleted from a cloud server), and to advise the board about filing a report with law enforcement, or pursuing civil remedies.	Attorney-client privileged input to help assess response options in the best interests of the library.
7.  The Response Team should retain a qualified IT/data security professional to assess and develop an "Incident Report" with a Final Inventory of what is confirmed as missing, a conclusion as to how it went missing, and if/how it can be recovered.	This should be done within 3 days of discovery and before there are any changes to the system.   Ideally, this work should only be performed after the library and the IT professional sign a written contract that is reviewed by the lawyer.	A contract with a qualified firm; A certificate of insurance from the professional firm; A written Incident Report from the firm.
8. Based on the value, sensitivity, and type of information in the Final Inventory, work with the IT professional and lawyer to assess any legal steps the library must take to recover or to give required notifications of data breach.	Depending on what went missing, the library could have concerns under any number of laws.	The final recommendation should be a memo to the board, regarding any necessary steps (or confirming not are needed).
9.  Based on the complete Incident Report's assessment of what is  missing, how it went missing, and if/how it can be recovered, and any relevant details about the employee, develop a course of action.	For more on this aspect, see the rest of this RAQ.	Recourse.

What happens as part of number "9," is the actual answer to the member's question.  But until a library follows steps "1" through "8," it can't fully know its options under "9."

And what can happen as part of "9"?  The range of consequences for unauthorized computer access and/or data destruction is vast, running from criminal penalties to civil remedies.  And if considered with solutions for how a library can recover from the loss, there are further possibilities.

If I was on the board where a former director removed all the library files from a library owned-computer that relate to the running of the public library, at the end of the day, here's what I'd want get out of "The Files Are Gone" process:

• Know if the files were simply removed, or if they were removed and accessed/disclosed beyond the library;
• If they were disclosed beyond the library, what the library must do to address that (including special considerations if personal or confidential information was accessed);
• If the files were only removed, know if they can easily be replaced, or if they were the library's only copy;
• If they can't be easily replaced, how much it will cost to replace them, and any negative impacts we'll experience until we do;
• How we have concluded the files were removed by the former employee, if they were an employee when they did it, and what the due process is for addressing that;
• If (based on all the information gathered, and more that will be specific to the situation), the board should contact the police, or consider a civil claim against the former employee.

By demanding solid, well-documented and qualified answer to these questions (What happened?  how does it impact the library?  What can we do?) a board member is being a good fiduciary, and positioning the library to identify the best recourse.

Now let's say that, in the grand scheme of things, the "missing files" appear to be pretty minor (and do not involve private information).  Let's say that, for whatever reason, the outgoing employee deleted all the library's "standard operating procedures." Not the policies--those are on the library's website and backed up in numerous places - but all the details about (as the question says) "running the library:"  How to organize the courier manifest.  The templates for the volunteer letters and community meeting notices.  The budget template and calendar for strategic planning.  Their own emails on their library account.  Nothing private, no circulation or credit card information, but a body of work that represent hundreds of compensated hours…lost.

This may seem like the kind of loss that isn’t dire enough to warrant the steps I have outlined above, but it absolutely is.  First, only a professional can say when data is truly "lost" (especially emails).  And even if, at the end of the day, there is a board decision not to pursue any consequences (privately, civilly or criminally), such (in)action must be based on good information--not just the result of a decision not to investigate in the first place.

The budget for such response, if planned carefully, can be very modest (under $1500).[4]  Reaching out to a library's system and regional council to find the professional you need might help the library get those services at a reasonable price (and again, depending on the system-library service agreement, much more).

Why am I adamant about this follow-through, even for a "small" incident?  Because sometimes a "small" incident is only the tip of a much larger iceberg.  Unauthorized data destruction by a former employee could be a serious breach of their duty, the law--and even their oath of office.  But it might not be.  The right response, and the fair response, can only be formulated through careful documentation and analysis.

This is what positions the board to know what recourse it can take, when presented with such a serious situation.

Thank you for trusting "Ask the Lawyer" with this sensitive question.

 

 

---

[1] If you are reading this while working on this type of issue, take a deep breath.  You've got this.

[2] There are too many types of IT supply/support arrangements out there for me to be more precise than this.  Some systems are essentially the IT department for their member libraries. Others are not.  This aspect will be governed by the System's member contract…but generally, a good place to start is on the phone!

[3] In keeping with the question, this chart addresses what to do if the person involved is former employee.  If the person is a current employee, the Response Team should include someone qualified to assess an appropriate response that ensures 1) due process for the employee; 2) security for the investigation; and 3) stability for ongoing operations of the library.

[4] Is this a low-ball figure?  Could it be much bigger?  Yes. But if it gets much bigger, that should be because it's actually a big problem that needs to be solved.

 

On the surface, this is a simple issue: if people are using their cell phone for personal use on the job, a simple policy to stop the use should solve the problem, right?

Not these days.

As technology continues to transform the workplace (and the world), “cell phones away, please,” is not as easy as it once was.  People use their cell phones to monitor health, track their steps, and get emergency calls from kids at school.  Some may even use their cell phones to save their lives, serve as a witness to illegal activity, and exercise their right to free speech. 

Many of these functions depend on the proximity of the person to the phone (or the watch that connects them to it), and because of this, cell phones are becoming extensions of the people who own them.  So a policy to keep them stowed and away, or secured in a locker, can be met with resistance. 

Here are a few examples of how this “resistance” can play out on the job:

• An employee who is the parent of a child with Type 1 Diabetes may want their cell phone on them to keep an eye on their child’s glucose level[1] while the child is at school;
• An employee who being stalked by an ex may want the phone to record evidence to seek a protective order;
• An employee trying to lose weight per a doctor’s orders may be using a supportive app and a Fitbit;
• An employee may want to use their personal camera phone (“it’s better”) to take pictures for the library’s Instagram;
• An employee may need to text their partner to confirm who is picking up the kids, making dinner, and mowing the lawn before it turns onto a meadow;
• An employee may really love to play Candy Crush Saga® when things are slow at the reference desk.

As can be seen, many of the reasons to keep a cell phone on one’s person are compelling; other uses may not be.  And many of reasons/uses overlap with other library policies.

The goal, of course, is not to bar an employee from important connections and a tool for their well-being, but to make sure the use of personal electronics does not distract from the library’s professional environment and employee productivity (even on a slow day).  To achieve that, there are two broad solutions: 1) rely on a collection of policies to address the variety of purposes for personal cell phones while at work; or 2) create a catch-all policy. 

In a work environment where consistency for staff members is critical for professionalism and productivity, I prefer a combination of both.  What does that combination look like? 

It starts with policies for:

• ADA accommodations
• FMLA
• Domestic violence victims’ accommodations
• Workplace violence prevention
• Communications/media
• Use of technology
• Confidentiality of library records and patron privacy
• Employee conduct

…which should all allow for appropriate use of personal cell phones and electronic devices.  This doesn’t mean the policy has to mention cell phones specifically—just have enough flexibility to address them.

At the same time, assuming the above-listed policies harmonize with it, creating a specific “Policy on Use of Personal Cell Phones and Electronics,” as proposed by the member, can help employees and management navigate these issues in a rapidly changing world.

Here is an example of such a policy[2]:

[INSERT LIBRARY NAME] Policy on Personal Use of Cell Phones and Electronics

The mission of the [INSERT LIBRARY NAME] depends on employees maintaining a professional, productive environment. 

To maintain that environment, use of personal cell phones and electronics should only divert employees from work duties in the case of an emergency. 

To achieve this, cell phones and personal electronics should be stored in a carrier, purse, or pocket where the screen is not visible during work time, and watches synched with other electronics should not divert employees from work except during designated breaks in designated break areas. 

Sudden personal emergency needs that require use of a cell phone or other personal electronics should follow the established procedures for use of break time and personal time.

Use of cell phones and personal electronics for ADA accommodations, FMLA arrangements, personal emergency, and personal safety needs are exempted from this policy, and should be arranged on a case by case basis with a supervisor per the relevant policy. 

As with most HR policies, this one sounds simple, but can be complex to administer.  The need to be flexible and allow some cell phone use (especially ADA use, the basis of which may be confidential), can cause seeming inconsistency in enforcement.  To address this, employees must be sensitized to the fact that some people may depend on a personal devise for an authorized (and confidential) use, while at the same time be given the clear message that keeping in touch with social media and personal contacts during work time is not allowed.

As technology puts pressure on the norms of society, it is important to draw (and re-draw) reliable and clear boundaries…especially in the workplace.  So should a workplace have a policy on personal cell phones?  Done right, and with due consideration of the law, it can help.

Thanks for a timely question.

To answer this question, I had to switch things up, and pretend that one day, there I am, sitting in my office,[1] when a barefoot person walks up to my door and asks “I want enjoy my library privileges while barefoot, and they won’t let me.  Can they do that, or can you help me sue?”[2]

If someone actually paid me for a consultation related to this conundrum,[3] here would be my diagnostic process.  For the sake of argument, let’s say that for every question I pose, the answer is, “No.”

• Do you have a disability that requires you to be barefoot?
• Do you hold a sincerely held religious belief that requires you to be barefoot?
• Does this rule disproportionately impact you as a member of a protected class?
• Are you subject to some type of judicial order that requires you to be barefoot?[4]
• Have you observed that other patrons at the library are barefoot, while a rule against going barefoot is being selectively applied to you?

Once I got through establishing that the answer to each question was “no,” I would then likely say: “Well, I am sorry, but whether it’s public or private property, if shoes are required by the library, I see no basis for a claim.”

Of course, the law is always evolving, but right now, simply being “a person who wants to go barefoot,” is NOT a protected category in New York State.  So, whether it’s my house, McDonald’s, or the local (school, association, or public) library, the old rule “no shirt, no shoes, no service,” can still apply.

This right to impose reasonable and uniformly applied conditions for entry—like shoes, shirts, and leaving beverages at the door—is rooted in the concept of real property (ownership of land).  A person or organization that owns land can impose (with varying degrees) restrictions on how others may access it.  And unless connected to an established[5] or fundamental right—like freedom of religion—those restrictions cannot be challenged via lawsuit (although for a library governed by a board, it can be challenged and changed as a matter of policy). 

The concept of requiring certain attire in relation to property is common in New York’s laws, regulations, and case law.  Country clubs may require a formal style of clothing, while barring cleats and spikes indoors.  Children’s camps may require kids to wear shoes (with backs!).  Since this answer gave me an excuse to do the research, I even learned there is a state-imposed dress code for recently legalized MMA (Mixed Martial Arts): man must be shirtless, while women must wear tops (I can’t imagine this gender-based rule will go unchallenged for very long).[6]

Why all this commentary about the law and clothing? I’ll make it clear.  Libraries—whether they are public or private—have the right to require visitors to wear shoes, to wear clothing that covers certain portions of the body, and to check their beverages at the door. This goes hand-in-hand with the right to require that people not play loud music, not be disruptive, and not import disturbing body odor beyond a certain personal zone.[7]

It is important, however, to have a clear and uniformly enforced policy for imposing these reasonable conditions.  The minute a small child is allowed to go barefoot in the library (bad idea!), an adult can try to claim that right, too.  And extreme care should be taken to not adopt policies that can impact protected classes of people (barring head coverings, for instance), unless a lawyer has been consulted in the drafting of the policy, and staff are well-trained on the nuances of enforcement.

So, to bring it back to the member’s question: there is no need for a liability waiver, if your library simply wants to insist that people wear shoes.  On the flip(-flop) side, if a library wants to explore a “barefoot-positive” policy, more than a waiver would be needed to address the risks: a board would have to explore all the risks caused to those not wearing shoes in a place with heavy books, carts, lots of foot traffic, and many tables and chairs.  That risk assessment would consider not only the likelihood of injury, but workplace safety rules, insurance carrier requirements, and the interaction of such a policy with other institution-specific practices (particularly, how often they clean the floor).

Again, this all comes down to the requirements and needs of a particular library, on a particular piece of property, governed by a particular set of rules.  I want to stress: such factors are variable.  The “National Yoga Library,”[8] or a library based around a culture where shoes are left at the door, would have a different perspective on this issue, perhaps insisting on a no-shoe policy (there are some places where it’s shoes that are considered dangerous and unsanitary, which makes sense, when you think what they walk through).  But for most libraries in New York, where for six months of the year our floors are coated in slush and salt, and furniture design presents many a hazard for unshod feet, “shoes, please” is likely the policy of choice.  And it’s okay to insist on it.

Thanks for a great question!

This member is thinking ahead!

Starting June 29, 2019, any space within a 100-foot perimeter around a public or association library, including adjacent businesses, is subject to a state-wide smoking ban.  The sole exception is residential properties (inside and out).

Any person or business violating this new ban may be subject to a $2,000 fine.[1]

This new law is part of Section 1339-o of New York’s Public Heath Law.  It reads:

Smoking shall not be permitted and no person shall smoke within one hundred feet of the entrances, exits or outdoor areas of any public or association library as defined in subdivision two of section two hundred fifty-three of the education law; provided, however, that the provisions of this subdivision shall not apply to smoking in a residence, or within the real property boundary lines of such residential real property.

This is a powerful new law, and it has many libraries thinking about implementation.

As the member’s question illustrates, complying with, taking advantage of, and rolling out this new law may take some effort—as well as some tact and diplomacy. 

Here are some tips for a graceful transition (and how to not ignite the fuse of nearby, non-residential smokers and their landlords):

First, some new signage can go up, alerting people to the impact of the new law. Per Public Health Law Section 1399-p (“Posting of Signs”), smoking signage should meet the following requirements:

“Smoking” or “No Smoking” signs, or “Vaping” or “No Vaping” signs, or the international “No Smoking” symbol, which consists of a pictorial representation of a burning cigarette enclosed in a circle with a bar across it, shall be prominently posted and properly maintained where smoking and vaping are regulated by this article, by the owner, operator, manager or other person having control of such area.

Signage to assist with compliance should add “…within 100 feet of this boundary.  NY Public Health Law 1399-o.”

Second, it might be helpful to amend or create library’s policy on smoking so it states:

Per Section 1399-o of New York’s Public Health Law, it is forbidden to smoke within 100 feet of library property (except for residential properties).  To promote compliance, the library will maintain signage consistent with Section 1399-p of that law, and will work with impacted neighbors to enforce and encourage compliance with this law.

Third, a simple plan of outreach to “impacted neighbors,” can help your library collaborate on compliance (instead of waiting for a clash of employees or customers).  This is not a legal requirement, but it is the type of law-based, thoughtful, pro-active rollout can forge and maintain healthy neighborhood relations. 

Part of such a “Smoking Ban Rollout Plan” could include a letter such as:

Dear [Non-residential Neighbor within 100 fee of library property]:

As you may know, effective June 19, 2019, New York’s Public Health Law makes it illegal to smoke within 100 feet of a public or association library like the [NAME] Library.  The sole exception to this law is a residential property.

As you can see on the attached map, your property is within 100 feet of the library’s.  Please let us know of any concerns you have about alerting your [employees, customer’s, etc] to the requirements of this new law.  Please also let us know who we may contact it the event of a concern.

Our board and library staff are working to alert everyone and make sure our transition to this new law goes smoothly.  [We are installing new signage, as well.]  If you need to discuss any aspect of this, please contact [name] and [number or email].

Thank you for your consideration!

Sincerely,

Your friends at the [NAME] Library

Any contact with neighbors should bear in mind that under the law, certain facilities (ironically, hospitals and residential health care facilities) are allowed to “designate” a smoking area on otherwise-non-smoking premises (this might be the scenario in the circumstances described by the member).  Further, if a business or person can allege an “undue hardship,” they can request a waiver of a smoking ban under Section 1399-u.[2]  Since you don’t want a confrontation to spur a request for a waiver, “friendly outreach” is a good tone to strive for.

And finally, it is good for your library to consider that enforcing a smoking ban can cause a lot of stress, and use up a lot of director and staff energy.  Think about it: Librarians already have to be on the lookout for illegal porn use, opioid overdoses, and destruction of library property.  Now they have to patrol for neighborhood smoking, too?  That’s a lot of social work for someone who just wants to help the world find information. 

For those moments, in addition to your library policy, a short statement endorsed by the board, for staff can hand out, might be helpful.  Something like:

Consistent with New York’s Public Health Law (Section 1399-0), there is no smoking allowed within 100 feet of the [NAME] library.  Thank you for supporting New York State’s public health initiative, and helping our library honor this law. –The Board of the [NAME] Library

When facing a needy[3] smoker, backup from both the state, the law, AND your board can be a great morale booster.

Libraries should also note: while Section 1339-o of the Public Health Law bars smoking AND vaping in many areas, this new library-specific section (section 6) bars only SMOKING[4] (and yes, under the law, “smoking” and “vaping” are distinguished.[5]  “Smoking” means “the burning of a lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe or any other matter or substance which contains tobacco.”  “Vaping” means “the use of an electronic cigarette.”).  So in addition to the compliance steps outlined above, get some binoculars, so you can be ready for some precise enforcement!

So that’s it.  Libraries needing to check their property line maps to establish their 100-foot perimeter can use their property survey and the county’s tax maps (this is also how you can check for a property’s actual owner, in addition to simply observing and notifying their tenants).

I wish every public and association library in New York smoke-(but not vapor)-free property lines!

 

---

[1] From the relevant county health department, or, in some places, another designated enforcement official.

[2] Yes, this law uses almost the entire alphabet.

[3] I was a smoker in the 90’s.  I quit around Y2K, but I still remember the feeling of being an addict needing to smoke…it can make you act grumpy to even a very nice librarian.

[4] At some point I will check JSTOR to see if there is hard info as to why vaping within 100 feet of library is somehow better for the public health than smoking. 

[5] The definitions are in Section 1399-n.

 

Wow, what a great question: what is the hierarchy of laws impacting the employment conditions of librarians?

The laws impacting the employment conditions of librarians are a complex logic tree with many branches.  When I consider the amount of laws, and the permutations….

Just…wow.[1]

For a lawyer practicing in both library and employment law, this question is the equivalent of someone handing a librarian a huge box of materials while asking: “Can you catalog these, then use them in a ‘Library Employee Rights’ display for the lobby?”

I can’t wait to curate the display, but first, let’s take a look at what’s in the “library employment law” box.  We’ll take them in rough order of hierarchy/priority.

The first item in the box is a huge, grubby tome that lawyers, even younger ones, use every day (if they are at a firm owned by a crusty Gen X lawyer[2]): Black’s Law Dictionary. 

A legal dictionary is in the collection because, although no lawyer would ever litigate an employment law matter based solely on a dictionary definition, legal concerns often turn on precise word meaning, and employment law certainly does.  In fact, there are at least three different legal definitions of the word “employee” that apply to library-related issues.[3]

The second is not a book, but a collection of CD’s containing a huge database.  What’s on the database?  It’s the “common law”—a body of case law and rulings that can influence how black-letter laws[4] work together.  The “common law” is a body of shared language and precedent that can influence (sometimes heavily) legal decisions.  It is often the glue that holds legal decisions together.

And now, for a few volumes that are far less esoteric:

The Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”): Among many other things, this is the law governing who must be paid overtime when they work more than 40 hours in the standard work-week.

Federal Civil Rights Laws: This is a compendium of laws governing rights protecting people under the jurisdiction of the USA from discrimination.  It includes the Civil Rights Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act. 

The New York Human Rights Law: This is a compendium of laws governing rights protecting people from discrimination in New York.  It includes protections on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, gender expression, prior conviction and pre-disposing genetic characteristics (among many other things).  It is why your library recently adopted a sexual harassment report form.[5]

New York Labor Law & Regulations: Among many other things, this is the law that mandates one unpaid break every six hours for certain hourly employees.

New York Civil Service Law: Among many other things, this is the law governing the hiring, advancement, compensation scale, discipline, and termination of most public library employees.

Federal Laws Governing Benefits: This is a compendium of laws governing employee benefits in the USA.  It includes a law called ERISA, and the Affordable Care Act.

The New York Laws Governing Employee Benefits and Protections: This is a compendium of laws controlling unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation for work-related injury, insurance for non-work-related injury, retirement benefits, and most recently, the Paid Family Medical Leave Act.

New York Education Law & Regulations/New York Not-for-Profit Corporation Law: These laws are combined in one handy volume to create the rights and duties of a chartered library, and its governing board (who, within a framework of laws, are the ultimate decision-makers regarding employment at their library).

Local Civil Service Rules:  Based on New York’s “Municipal Home Rule Law,” many of the details of Civil Service-controlled employment practices can change from county to county (and municipality to municipality).

Local laws: Some municipalities adopt local law to create further protections for employees.  These laws cannot be contrary to state, federal, and county law, but can expand employee rights further.

Random Authorities:  This book is a vivid graphic novel depicting numerous opinions by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), the U.S. Department of Justice, the National Labor Relations Board, the New York State Comptroller, the New York Attorney General, the New York Committee on Open Government, and the New York Commissioner of Education, regarding matters impacting library employees.  One delightful example of this is an intricate decision by the State Comptroller about how much money could be spent on a party for volunteers.[6]

And finally, some really cool, custom works are in the box… 

A Choose-Your-Own-Adventure novel called A Journey Through Your Charter and Bylaws.

Why is this a choose-your-own-adventure?  Because while neither a charter nor bylaws can change the above-listed law, the “type” of library an institution is chartered as will impact if and how those laws apply.  And within the framework set by those laws and their application to your library, it is the board—whose composition and functions are controlled by the charter and bylaws—that is the ultimate party responsible for hiring and firing of employees, which sets the stage for all other employment-related actions.

A collection of scrolls labelled “Contracts.”  This could be as simple as a contract with an Executive Director or Book-keeper, or as complex as a “Collective Bargaining Agreement” with an employee union. It is important to note that while a contract can create a great many additional rights, it cannot be contrary to the Charter and Bylaws, nor any of the laws listed above (UNLESS there is not an “exception” in the law, allowing it to be altered by the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, and if your library type means they apply).

And finally, the most valuable part of the collection: a weird device, rather like a flour sifter, that says in big, bronze letters on its handle “IT DEPENDS.”  What does this screen do?

It tells you which laws apply to which libraries, in which order of priority, under which circumstances.[7]  When applied properly, this allows you to create…

Your Institution’s Employee Policies, drafted to comply with the law as it applies to your library, and to support your unique charter and mission.  Such policies should be routinely re-assessed to ensure continued legal compliance and support for your library’s key objectives (like attracting, retaining, and developing the best staff possible).

In other words—and in direct response to part of the member’s question—the purpose of policy is to articulate and apply the law as it governs your library.  No policy should ever contain a provision contrary to a governing law or regulation.  This is why policy must be routinely assessed, revised, and updated.

And that’s the collection.

At this point, I imagine the member who asked this question might be feeling: Whoa, information overload!

Let me show you my display, here….

You probably thought it was going to be a tree, right?  Nope.  It’s a finely balanced array of media stacked to look like librarian assembling a sculpture of…a librarian. 

Why is that?

No other entity created by law(s) has the type of support, mandates, restrictions, and—yes—latitude under the law that libraries do.  Yes, libraries operate with a strict framework created by the laws and regulations listed above,[8] and operate within exacting mandates…but within that framework, libraries have almost limitless discretion with policies.  That is how they function and evolve as reflections of their communities. 

That said, certain things fundamental, and cannot be trumped by much.  Here are a few (with links to the laws that back them up):

• In New York, librarians must get an unpaid half-hour break every six hours; https://www.labor.ny.gov/workerprotection/laborstandards/employer/meals.shtm
• Even if considered employees of their sponsoring municipality (which is often, at a bare minimum, debatable!), most librarians paid an hourly wage are entitled to protection under the FLSA; https://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs7.pdf
• In New York, unpaid volunteers may not replace or augment paid staff; https://www.labor.ny.gov/workerprotection/laborstandards/PDFs/FAQs_NonProfit_and_State2016.pdf
• In New York, any employee reporting or supporting a concern about sexual harassment is protected from retaliation;

 https://www.ny.gov/combating-sexual-harassment-workplace/workers

• In New York, public library employees serve at the pleasure of their boards, NOT their sponsoring municipality;

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/NPC/202

• In New York, public library employees may be indemnified[9] by their governing boards;

https://www.osc.state.ny.us/legal/2001/op2001-12.htm

• In New York, association library employees may be indemnified by their governing boards;

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/NPC/202

• And…while it can be rather a pain to work within, public library employees are protected by the New York Civil Service law:

https://www.nyla.org/a-librarians-guide-to-civil-service-in-nys-2018/[10]

 

How does this play out?

Let’s take breaktimes as an example.

In New York, employees have to take a break every six hours.  It’s the law.  In my office, when a paralegal gets so into the project they don’t want to stop, I have to order them[11] to take a break.  (at which point they do, because otherwise…irony).

Now, how I choose to support my employees as they take their break is up to me, and may become a matter of policy.  Do I supply a break room?  Do I have a fridge and a policy/procedure for keeping the break room clean and the fridge free of mold?  All of those things are discretionary—and to govern the details, I might have a policy that goes beyond the minimum.  But here is where things get complicated: If an employee doesn’t follow the policy, I may need to follow rules set by Civil Service to discipline them. But if I am selectively enforcing the policy in a discriminatory way, state or federal civil rights law could govern. Or perhaps the employee will first file a union grievance, which we’ll have to arbitrate…

And that is the hierarchy of employment law.  It’s not really a heirarchy…it’s more of a fractal pattern.  The good news is, library leadership gets some say in the pattern.

What shape does your library pick?

---

[1] If I were the sort to write via emoji, I would be using the icon for “Mind.  Blown.”

[2] That’s me.

[3] There is a definition for purposes of liability, a definition for purposes of compensation, and a definition for purposes of copyright ownership of employee work product.  And yes, they are all slightly different.

[4] “Black letter” laws are those “embodied in…statutes.”  Thanks, Black’s Law Dictionary! (Centennial Edition)

[5] Due to changes in 2018.

[6] This opinion is here: https://www.osc.state.ny.us/legal/1990/legalop/op90-63.htm.  The final decision?  “A public library may sponsor a recognition dinner for volunteer library workers, but may not sponsor a party for the senior citizens of the sponsor municipality or school district..

[7] This “screen” is either a lawyer, an HR professional, a civil service professional, or a library system or council working with one of those to support your unique operations.

[8] And more….so many, many more…

[9] In layman’s terms, this means you are protected in the event you are sued for just doing your job.

[10] I was lucky enough to attend an excellent presentation by authors of this Guide at the 2019 NYLA Conference. 

[11] My team is great!  Every employer should have this problem.

Here’s a typical scenario confronting the modern library board president: on the day the director alerts her that a patron is using the copiers to copy sexually explicit material—taking care to ensure the patrons and employees can see it— a clerk has threatened to complain to the union if the municipal lunch room isn’t made accessible to library employees.  The board chair looks compassionate and sighs…she’ll add these to a list that already includes:

a) trying to figure out if the library actually has a lease for its premises, where it has operated since 1892, but no one can find the deed or contract;

b) assessing if there’s enough money in the endowment to fix the elevator before there’s a complaint under the ADA (and can those funds even be used that way?); and

c) revising the employee handbook.

Municipal law, education law, employment law, intellectual property, and civil rights…all meet at the crossroads of “library law.”  Libraries also have unique protections under New York’s CPLR, and as they become increasingly critical providers of technology, must be adept at interpreting software licenses, too. 

The array of legal issues is endless.  How does a library find the right lawyer? 

To make sure your library can find the right fit for you, I have five answers.  But first, I have THREE IMPORTANT PRIMARY CONSIDERATIONS

Primary Consideration Number One: remember that legal services can be an expenditure like any other.  If your library is subject to a procurement policy, you may need to develop a “Request for Proposals” (“RFP”) to seek the service.  So before you try and of my suggestions below, rule an RFP in our out.

Primary Consideration Number Two:  The New York State Education Department’s Division of Library Development is a great resource for information, particularly on structural/charter, budget, and grant matters.  They are there to help you, so don’t hesitate to call (even if they end up telling you to find a lawyer—and they might—you’ll have a nice chat).

Primary Consideration Number Three:  NYLA, New York Library Trustees Association, and your regional council may have some resources for you, too. 

Of course, be careful how in-depth you go when describing your issue(s) to these resources, since these communications would not have attorney-client privilege.

Okay.  Here are “Five Ways to Find a Library Lawyer:”

1. In many counties, the local Bar Association runs an “attorney referral service.”  Attorneys who participate in the service will self-identify areas of experience and interest.  For many such services, the first 30 minutes of consultation with the lawyer they send you to is at a greatly reduced rate.
2. Almost all lawyers [1] enjoy “knowing someone.”  So even if they don’t practice in those areas, ask every lawyer you know for a referral.  Someone will eventually “know someone” who practices the type of law relevant to your library’s current needs.
3. Ask a local elected representative or municipal employee about lawyers they know who practice municipal law, or check to see if your local college or university has a “general counsel.”  This could put you on the trail of attorneys with the right array of municipal, education and employment law experience.
4. Members of any regional library counsel or network can separately contact the provider of this “Ask the Lawyer” service: The Law Office of Stephanie Adams, PLLC, at adams@losapllc.com.  If there is no conflict of interest, and your issue is within our experience, we can help—or, we can help you find the right attorney (not every issue needs a “library lawyer”).  The contract for such work would be separate from the service your regional council or network pays for, but you get the same hourly rate for most types of work.
5. Your insurance carrier may have a list of law firms near you to help out, and may even have some internal resources it can provide for policy and compliance-related matters.  Call your broker or representative to inquire (remember, your insurance carrier has a high motivation to you connect you to timely legal advice and avoid a claim!). 

When selecting a lawyer, is very appropriate to asking about past work, rates, and proof of malpractice insurance coverage.  The terms of any services should be confirmed in a signed “retainer agreement” or “letter of engagement.”  And don’t be shocked if the person you talk to says “I would have to research that.”  In my experience, libraries come up with very complicated and unique questions.  An experienced attorney may be able to give a quick tentative answer, but will then almost always want to check the latest case law, read your bylaws, and review other factors before committing to final, written advice.

Good luck!

---

[1] Do not rely on a board member who is a lawyer to provide the legal services, but DO ask them to help find the right person.  As has been written extensively in various guides from the Attorney General’s Charity Bureau, and the New York Bar Association, professionals sitting on not-for-profit boards owe the institution not only a fiduciary duty, but also the skills they bring to the table…but they are board members, not professionals under contract (this pertains to accountants, too).  It is a conflict of interest for a board member to be hired to provide professional services to a board s/he sits on…even if it is pro bono.  That said, they can absolutely (and should be) on the ad hoc committee helping to oversee the service or particular matter for the board!