Policy

Background checks and fingerprinting for new employees

Submission Date

Wednesday, April 7, 2021

Question

My questions involve background checks for potential new employees, fingerprinting, developing policies, procedures, and best practices.

Do background checks, fingerprinting, etc., need to be done for all positions? Does it need to be posted in the job advertisement that there will be a background check for the successful candidate or all finalist applicants? Can the background check need to include a financial check and a legal check?

And tangentially, am I correct in my assumption library staff are not considered mandated reporters? Are there guidelines for this as well.

Answer

This...is a big question. It's only three short paragraphs. But it's BIG.

It's "BIG" because the risks of getting this topic wrong are immense--from not only the obvious risks involving legal concerns, but risks involving ethics, privacy, and the goal at the heart of the issue: safety.

It's also BIG because the phrase "background check" is not tied to a precise or static definition. When someone says "background check" in the context of employment, here are just a few of the things it could mean:

Criminal background check
Credit check
Military service separation check (form "DD 214")
Motor Vehicle Records ("MVR") check
Transcript and education records check (including student disciplinary records)
Licensing/professional oversight body (medical board, bar association, etc.) check/confirmation of good standing
Civil litigation history review
Reference check
Previous employment verification
Social media/publications check

Each of these "checks" comes with a wide array of legal requirements--or typical legal cautions--governing its use.

For instance:

A criminal background check should only be used by an organization if it has an up-to-date "Criminal Background Check Policy," because in the state of New York, denying employment based on a criminal conviction requires the employer to do a precise analysis (of which the denied applicant can request a copy).[1]
A credit check should only be used by an organization if it has an up-to-date "Credit Check Policy" to ensure the regulations in the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") are being followed.[2]
A MVR should only be used by an organization if it has an up-to-date "MVR Check Policy" that clearly sets out the types of moving violations and other records that would flag a basis for non-employment.[3]

For all types of checks, the institution using them should have a clear policy governing what jobs require them, and how such records are evaluated, maintained, and disposed of.

And finally: when developing, implementing, and routinely using any type of background check policy, an organization is wise to take care that it is not incorporating factors that can be shown to disproportionately negatively impact (i.e., discriminate against) a particular category of applicant.

Okay, with all that off my chest, let's answer the actual questions.

First question:

Do background checks, fingerprinting, etc., need to be done for all positions?

The degree to which background checks and documentation of identity must be performed are governed by two things: what is legally required, and what the risk management practices of an institution dictate.

These two factors mean that practices will vary from place-to-place. A librarian working within a public school district in the state of New York will be subject to a criminal background check and must be fingerprinted[4] just as any other regular employee within their district. A librarian at a public or association library is not required by law to have a criminal background check, nor to be fingerprinted,[5] but an institution could decide, for risk management purposes, that a position requires that level of scrutiny for safety and security.

Second question:

Does it need to be posted in the job advertisement that there will be a background check for the successful candidate or all finalist applicants?

There is no requirement in the law that a job advertisement has to disclose a background check in the job advertisement. However, prior to obtaining and using any information from a third party whose business it is to provide background information, an employer must notify an applicant; this notice must be in writing and in a stand-alone format. Further, before a negative decision is made based on such information, it must be disclosed to the applicant. A good resource on this is the Federal Trade Commission,[6] but the third party provider, if they are a true professional, will provide the forms for each of these steps.

Now all that being said, it may be that some local hiring procedures or collective bargaining agreements require the disclosure of background checks in a job notice. Further, some employers may want to disclose their intent to use a background check to avoid surprising candidates further into the process. There is no bar to making such an early disclosure, but if given, such notices should be carefully drafted to avoid implying that those with arrests or criminal convictions[7] will not be considered for the position.

Third question:

Can the background check need to include a financial check and a legal check?

Yes, absolutely. A background check can include a credit check, a search for liens and other debt instruments, a review of criminal history, a consideration of driving record, and any combination of the items I listed at the top of this reply. Just be careful: if your library or system relies on a third party to supply that information, it must follow the guidance from the Federal Trade Commission (see that link in footnote 6).

Okay, at this point, I have to re-emphasize: before using any type of check, a library should have a policy covering that type of check, and that policy should cover all check-specific legal compliance, as well as: when the check is conducted, how it is conducted, how the information is used, and how the documents related to it are disposed of/retained. [8]

When developing such a policy, a good rule of thumb for an institution considering any type of background check is to be able to clearly answer the question: "Why are we doing this check?" While the reasons will vary, the answer should always relate to the essential functions listed in the job description, and the nature of your library.

For instance: if a position will create opportunities for a person to spend unsupervised time with vulnerable populations, a criminal background check and rigorous prior employer check is wise. If a position requires a particular credential, verification of that credential makes sense. And if you are hiring someone who will frequently have to drive the bookmobile, a motor vehicle records check is almost always imperative.

On the flip side: if a person is being hired for a job that doesn't require driving, a "current driver's license" should not be required. If a person will never have access to financial information or fiscal resources, a credit check is likely not necessary. And if a would-be library clerk has a DWI that is 20 years old--and no other criminal history--it is likely the conviction is not a basis to eliminate them from consideration.

Last question (and it's another biggie):

And tangentially, am I correct in my assumption library staff are not considered mandated reporters? Are there guidelines for this as well?

"Mandated reporters" is a legal term under Section 413 of the NY Social Services Law. Professionals listed in that section are required to make a report when they:

"...have reasonable cause to suspect that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is an abused or maltreated child, [OR] when they have reasonable cause to suspect that a child is an abused or maltreated child where the parent, guardian, custodian or other person legally responsible for such child comes before them in their professional or official capacity and states from personal knowledge facts, conditions or circumstances which, if correct, would render the child an abused or maltreated child."[9]

I have placed a list of the "Mandated Reporters" set by Section 413 below this answer. As you can see by reviewing the (long) list, library employees (unless their function also fits into one of the categories listed in 413) are NOT Mandated Reporters.

Of course, a library--or an institution that hosts a library--can decide and enforce via policy that its employees have an affirmative duty to report observed or suspected child abuse (or any abuse) that occurs on their property or in their programs. Many insurance carriers actually require their insureds to have such a policy.[10]

[NOTE: If an employer has any type of "report abuse" policy, employees should be trained on how to make such reports no less than annually. The average person can have a trauma response to witnessing abuse, which can impact their ability to report it, as well as negatively affect their well-being. Routine training on how to recognize and report concerns, and experienced support for reporters, can help with this.]

Thank you for an important series of questions.

List of "Mandated Reporters" under Section 413 of the Social Services Law (also called "human services professionals[11]"):

...any physician; registered physician assistant; surgeon; medical examiner; coroner; dentist; dental hygienist; osteopath; optometrist; chiropractor; podiatrist; resident; intern; psychologist; registered nurse; social worker; emergency medical technician; licensed creative arts therapist; licensed marriage and family therapist; licensed mental health counselor; licensed psychoanalyst; licensed behavior analyst; certified behavior analyst assistant; hospital personnel engaged in the admission, examination, care or treatment of persons; a Christian Science practitioner; school official, which includes but is not limited to school teacher, school guidance counselor, school psychologist, school social worker, school nurse, school administrator or other school personnel required to hold a teaching or administrative license or certificate; full or part-time compensated school employee required to hold a temporary coaching license or professional coaching certificate; social services worker; employee of a publicly-funded emergency shelter for families with children; director of a children’s overnight camp, summer day camp or traveling summer day camp, as such camps are defined in section thirteen hundred ninety-two of the public health law; day care center worker; school-age child care worker; provider of family or group family day care; employee or volunteer in a residential care facility for children that is licensed, certified or operated by the office of children and family services; or any other child care or foster care worker; mental health professional; substance abuse counselor; alcoholism counselor; all persons credentialed by the office of alcoholism and substance abuse services; employees, who are expected to have regular and substantial contact with children, of a health home or health home care management agency contracting with a health home as designated by the department of health and authorized under section three hundred sixty-five-l of this chapter or such employees who provide home and community based services under a demonstration program pursuant to section eleven hundred fifteen of the federal social security act who are expected to have regular and substantial contact with children; peace officer; police officer; district attorney or assistant district attorney; investigator employed in the office of a district attorney; or other law enforcement official.

[1] This is why the phrase "Must have no criminal history" or the like must not be included on a job notice. For more information on this, visit https://dhr.ny.gov/protections-people-arrest-and-conviction-records.

[2] More info on this further into the answer.

[3] For some employers, this criteria is set by the provider of the organizations’ automobile and/or general liability insurance; this is especially true for organizations that use "company" vehicles.

[4] As listed here: http://www.nysed.gov/educator-integrity/who-must-be-fingerprinted-charts.

[5] Unless there is a very obscure local law I have been unable to find. If you are aware of one, please email me at adams@losapllc.com.

[6] More information on how/when to give this notice is here: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/background-checks-what-employers-need-know.

[7] Or other categories protected by law.

[8] That's right: I put that in italics, bold, and underlined it! An "Ask the Lawyer" first. No organization should ever "wing" a background check--of any kind. There is too much at stake.

[9] I know, there is a lot of room for interpretation in this language; when in doubt, seek guidance.

[10] I think of this as the "Penn State Victims Requirement."

[11] 18 NYCRR § 433.2

Tag

Proof of vaccination from employees

Submission Date

Monday, March 1, 2021

Question

We are a large (100-employee) school district public library. We are currently encouraging and educating employees on getting vaccinated, but not (yet) *requiring* vaccinations. We are providing employees with up to 4 hours of paid time off to obtain the vaccine voluntarily--if their vaccine appointment occurs during hours/days when they would otherwise be scheduled and working for us--and requiring proof of vaccination if this paid time off is used.

My question has to do with requiring or requesting proof of vaccination for employees who get vaccinated during their "off hours" and opt not to use this specific paid time off type. Can or should be asking for proof of vaccination from *all* employees, so that we can have some sense of how many employees have been vaccinated, if that is to somehow figure into any decisions we might need to make re: staffing and proximity to others, or any considerations for the possible liability of "direct threat" to others by those who either choose not to get vaccinated, or are awaiting vaccination eligibility?

If it is desirable or permissible for us to obtain proof of vaccination universally, should compliance by the employee be optional/voluntary or compulsory?

If we can obtain proof from everyone, I assume that this should be handled by HR (me) in the typical manner of any confidential medical information. But how do (or can) I share specifics on who has been vaccinated (versus who has not) with others, such as supervisors and managers? They might wish to know details in order to schedule staff accordingly. But at the same time, I would be leery of divulging such information, out of concerns for maintaining employee confidentiality, possible discrimination by unwitting supervisors, etc. I might be more inclined to/comfortable with reporting general numbers--i.e., of 100 employees, 29 have been vaccinated to date--than to share employee-specific details, but am not sure if that would be helpful, or really what information *is* helpful for employers to track and report on internally where vaccination status of staff is concerned.

This is an invaluable service. Thank you for your consideration of my questions and for any guidance you can give!

Answer

Over and over again, I am floored by the care, tenacity, and creativity of the libraries determined to provide services in a time of pandemic. New York's libraries just don't give up. This question shows the mechanics of that fighting spirit.

So much of what we do in this pandemic comes back to why we are doing things in this pandemic. For many libraries, the "why" of offering services is making sure their communities have lifelines to professionally curated information.

For this question, the "why" of asking for proof of vaccination is right there in the submission's core:

... so that we can have some sense of how many employees have been vaccinated, if that is to somehow figure into any decisions we might need to make re: staffing and proximity to others, or any considerations for the possible liability of "direct threat" to others by those who either choose not to get vaccinated, or are awaiting vaccination eligibility?

Let's take that "direct threat" part first.

Back on March 19, 2020, we addressed a question about employer (library) liability due to Coronavirus exposure. Although much has changed since that time (we have vaccines), the basic recipe for liability has not changed: liability happens when a person/entity owes a duty of care to a person, does not perform that duty, and the failure results in damage.

Because if this recipe, it is essential for libraries to always know what "duty of care" they owe their workers, and their community.

In a pandemic, evolving data and resulting best practices can change the "duty of care" rapidly (No masks? One mask? Two?).

While many resources are aggregating and pushing out up-to-the-minute guidance on "best practices," there are only three places libraries in the State of New York should be drawing their duty of care practices directly from: the New York State Department of Health ("NYSDOH"), the Centers for Disease Control ("CDC"), and the Occupational Hazard and Safety Administration ("OSHA").

Right now, as of this writing, OSHA's 1/29/2021 workplace guidance [1] for mitigating the impact of COVID-19 lists 16 "elements" of an effective COVID protection program. Here is what OSHA recommends about using awareness of vaccination status of employees:

Not distinguishing between workers who are vaccinated and those who are not: Workers who are vaccinated must continue to follow protective measures, such as wearing a face covering and remaining physically distant, because at this time, there is not evidence that COVID-19 vaccines prevent transmission of the virus from person-to-person. The CDC explains that experts need to understand more about the protection that COVID-19 vaccines provide before deciding to change recommendations on steps everyone should take to slow the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19.

So right now, the "duty of care" set out by OSHA expressly excludes relying on vaccination status to reduce the spread of the virus. Rather, it focuses on providing and insisting on appropriate PPE.

That said, in the same guidance, OSHA continues to recommend allowing employees who self-identify as medically vulnerable to swap tasks to limit risk:

Offer vulnerable workers duties that minimize their contact with customers and other workers (e.g., restocking shelves rather than working as a cashier), if the worker agrees to this.

This means if a person, relying on their vaccination status, decides to not self-identify as medically vulnerable, the employer is not advised to offer them contact-minimizing duties.

There are other steps on the current OSHA list that the member is already doing. By enabling the use of PTO for vaccination, they are following the guidance in element "14":

Making a COVID-19 vaccine or vaccination series available at no cost to all eligible employees. Provide information and training on the benefits and safety of vaccinations.

This guidance, I imagine, will evolve. That evolution should be reflected in revised Safety Plans.

And with that said, let's answer the member's specific questions:

Can or should be asking for proof of vaccination from *all* employees, so that we can have some sense of how many employees have been vaccinated, if that is to somehow figure into any decisions we might need to make re: staffing and proximity to others, or any considerations for the possible liability of "direct threat" to others by those who either choose not to get vaccinated, or are awaiting vaccination eligibility?

Based on the current OSHA guidance, along with guidance from the EEOC, the answer to this is "yes," and then "no." Yes, an employer can ask for proof of vaccination (whether acquired on PTO or off-hours).[2] No, right now, it should not be used for assignment of duties[3] or with the idea of reducing possible liability.

Here is the member's follow-up question:

If it is desirable or permissible for us to obtain proof of vaccination universally, should compliance by the employee be optional/voluntary or compulsory?

Based on the current OSHA guidance, along with guidance from the EEOC, right now does not seem like the time to rely on vaccination status and data to make determinations about workplace risk management and safety. So while requiring a notification of vaccination status may be permissible, it does not appear desirable if its purpose is to mitigate concerns about liability.

If, however, the motivation is to verify that the library is effectively encouraging the most employees possible to get vaccinated—simply for the employees' own personal health and safety—then yes, tracking those metrics (and any non-disability factors barring vaccinations) might not only be permissible, but desirable. In that case, the question is: does the information need to be tied directly to a particular employee, or is it just as meaningful if anonymous?

Which brings us to the member's last question:

But how do (or can) I share specifics on who has been vaccinated (versus who has not) with others, such as supervisors and managers?...I would be leery of divulging such information, out of concerns for maintaining employee confidentiality...

This HR manager knows their stuff!

First, yes: no matter what, never create a risk of trampling on employees' privacy.

Second: Right now, it appears that sharing such information is unnecessary.

In a December 18th, 2020 "Ask the Lawyer," I stated that a vaccine requirement should only be implemented if it is part of a well-thought-out, board-approved Safety Plan. Right now, it appears that no Safety Plan should rely on a vaccine requirement to reduce transmission of the virus. With that in mind, right now, it appears the safest course of action –both COVID-wise, and legally—is to encourage vaccination, but not require it, and if a library tracks it, only do it for purposes of encouraging more employee vaccinations (or finding out you've hit close to 100%).

Of course, here we are on February 26, 2021. If you are reading this in March, or April, or that sunny, warmer time in the future, May and beyond[4], this answer might no longer apply.

Keep checking with NYSDOH, with the CDC, and of course, with OSHA. At some point, requiring vaccination—or allocating duties by vaccination status—could become something expected of an employer. If that happens, a library's "duty of care" could change, altering the threshold for liability, and the answer to these questions could shift—some subtly, some not-so-subtly.

But we have had a lot of twists and turns in the Pandemic. That "shift" may or may not happen.[5] As I often say at my office, "the only plan we can make is that the plan will change." And how do you plan for that? By doing what this member has done: keeping employees' well-being and safety at the forefront, and adapting every time the data and guidance change.

If your library does that, you'll be as safe as you can be. And mitigate your liability.

Thank you for a thoughtful question.

[1] Posted as of February 26, 2021 at https://www.osha.gov/coronavirus/safework.

[2] This answer is found on the EEOC site at https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-covid-19-and-ada-rehabilitation-act-and-other-eeo-laws as of 2/26/2021. "K.3. Is asking or requiring an employee to show proof of receipt of a COVID-19 vaccination a disability-related inquiry? (12/16/20) No. There are many reasons that may explain why an employee has not been vaccinated, which may or may not be disability-related. Simply requesting proof of receipt of a COVID-19 vaccination is not likely to elicit information about a disability and, therefore, is not a disability-related inquiry. ... If an employer requires employees to provide proof that they have received a COVID-19 vaccination from a pharmacy or their own health care provider, the employer may want to warn the employee not to provide any medical information as part of the proof in order to avoid implicating the ADA."

[3] Remember, if the employee uses vaccination status to self-identify as vulnerable, such information can be considered by the library reactively (and confidentially). For more on that, see the "Ask the Lawyer" from January 19, 2021.

[4] Garden time! Can you tell I can't wait to get into the dirt? It always feels so distant, this time of year.

[5] As OSHA says, more research is required.

Tag

Follow-up question to heavy smells in library policy

Submission Date

Wednesday, February 10, 2021

Question

In reviewing your response to a question on Nov 17, 2020 from an adjunct library science professor, your advice is to create a "smell free zone" in the library for those patrons bothered by another person's odor. Your reply, however, does not address staff who are complaining as well about a patron's body odor. Often, the staff take the complaining patron's side. Often, the odiferous patron is a regular patron who spends hours at the library often on the Internet where PC workstations are relatively close to each other. Yes, I can tell staff it is part of their job to deal with it but often that results in a demoralized angry staff- not something I want to cultivate.
Thank you in advance! This column is very helpful!

Answer

I am glad the column is helpful, but this issue really shows the limits of the law!

Before I say what I mean, I need to emphasize three things:

1. State and federal law often protects employees who complain about "working conditions."[1] Since an odor is a "working condition," no matter what position a library takes on "bad" smell (barring it as a disturbance, allowing it as a matter of mission, or a solution somewhere in between), leadership should carefully listen to employees' concerns.

2. While my November 17th answer mused there are several compelling reasons to opt for a more inclusive solution (like use of a "scent free" zone), I want to re-emphasize: that is not what the law requires. Rather, the law requires that people not be barred from library access on the basis of disability or protected characteristics. Since that is a slippery slope, not barring people on the basis of smell (or using a "scent free zone") is a good way to stay in a legally safe zone.

But barring disturbing odors, if done carefully, is still allowed by law.

3. Although I imagine that the member submitting the question didn't mean "taking sides" literally, because it is so critical, I have to say: library employees should never perceptibly "take sides" with one patron against another patron, even if they privately agree that a patron's odor is off-putting.[2] This is because if access is going to be limited, the library must be able to show fair and equitable treatment. An employee with a concern, of course, can take it directly (and discretely) to their supervisor.

So with all that said...

From the legal perspective, the key on the employee side of the "smell" issue is to listen to employees' bona fide concerns about their working conditions. This is true whether your library decides to bar certain smells as "distractions," or to find creative ways that, ultimately, might expose an employee to an unwelcome smell. Above all, whatever approach is taken, it should be clearly set out in a written policy, and decisions under that policy should be well-documented. And to address concerns like the one raised by the member, to the greatest extent possible, the policy should be written with the input of employees, who should also be trained on how to work with it.

But that said...

Does this mean some employees, believing their library should have a more inclusive policy, might have to enforce a restrictive policy? Yes.

Does this mean some employees, not liking their library's more inclusive policy, may have to work near a person whose smell they do not like? Yes.

This is what I mean by "the limits of the law." The law can help libraries foster positive working conditions and employee morale—to a point. After that, it is down to leadership, well-developed polices, and good employee relations.

This is why people often like their HR director more than their lawyer!

[1] I don't mean employees are entitled to complain all day every day; an employer can require complaints to be conveyed in a way that does not unduly burden productivity. But if an employee is expressing a bona fide concern (it's too cold/it smells/these computers don't work) the National Labor Relations Board has found such expressions to be protected activity.

[2] This is a tough one. It is not "taking sides" to contribute to a report or Code of Conduct enforcement; my concern is that at all times library employees have to model fairness, so when they take action under a policy, the process looks as fair as possible.

Tag

Policy

Public Libraries

Staff COVID vaccinations

Submission Date

Friday, December 18, 2020

Question

Can a public library compel staff members to get vaccinations for COVID-19, when they are available? If so, can an employee request an exemption? Do we need waivers of library liability if a staff member chooses not to get vaccinated?

Answer

This is an incredibly sensitive, important, and complex set of questions. I know a lot of people out there in "library land" are waiting on the answer—from many different perspectives.

So we're going to take it slow, break it down, and unpack the components of the answers one step at a time.

Step 1: Considering requiring immunization to COVID-19 as part of a library's evolving Safety Plan

As I have emphasized in numerous pandemic-related answers, any library operating in any capacity right now should have a trustee-approved Safety Plan tailored to its unique operations. The plan should evolve as new safety-related information emerges, and as library operations change.

As of this writing,[1] some libraries are open to visit. Some are doing only curbside. Some are offering more remote programming. Some have used their information management and lending capacity to distribute PPE, food, and living supplies. Because of this diversity of service, they all should have different Safety Plans.

The Safety Plan of a library closed to the public for everything but curbside will be different from the Safety Plan of a library open for socially distant use of computers and lending. The Safety Plan of a library distributing fresh produce will be different from a library streaming programming from its community room to an audience within its area of service (and beyond). The Safety Plan of a library operating with ten on-site staff in December should be different from the one they used when there was only one employee on-site in June.

Just like the decision to use a particular mode of sanitization, as a library undertakes and changes its unique services, the decision to require immunization of employees should start with vaccination's role not as a stand-alone solution, but as part of an overall approach to limiting the impact of the pandemic on your library, its employees, and your community. Do the services your library needs to provide the community warrant immunization of employees? If so, keep reading.

Step 2: Wait, so does what you said in "Step 1" mean a public library can go ahead and require employees to be vaccinated?

Yes...and NO.

I say "yes," because under the right conditions, the law does allow employers to impose conditions for safety, and that can include mandatory vaccination.[2] However, I also say "NO," because the phrase "the right conditions" carries a lot of complexity for three little words. To be safe, the default assumption of a library[3] should always be that it can't require immunization of its employees...and then work to find the way, if well-informed risk management and an updated Safety Plan warrants it, it can require immunizations (and just as critically, if it should).

Step 3: Assessing if a library can require vaccination of employees

Before a library gets too far into an internal debate about if it should amend its Safety Plan to require vaccination of employees, it should assess if it is in a position to do so. This means having an experienced HR administrator or attorney look at the organization's bylaws, policies, and employment relationships to see if there are any steps or bars to the requirement.

What could such a bar look like? The most common impediment a library will run into on this is an employment contract—either for individual employees, or with an entire employee union (a "collective bargaining agreement"). The bottom line on this type of impediment: if there is a contract in play, a library must be very tactical, collaborative, and strategic prior to creating—or even considering—immunization as an employment condition.[4]

Another bar might be language in an employee handbook or a pre-pandemic policy. Still another might be that "gray area" when library employees are considered employees of a school district, village, or town.

The best overall guidance I can offer on this Step is: assessing if your library is positioned to require immunization is a critical step to using vaccination as a tool in your Safety Plan. Bring in a ringer to help your library assess the extent of what it can do.

Step 4: Assessing if a library should require vaccination of employees

Okay, let's say you consulted with the best employment lawyer in your village/town/district, they took a close look at whatever relevant contracts and policies your library has, and they have said: "No problem, you can require this."[5]

The next important thing to consider is: should your library require this?

Compelled immunization[6] is an incredibly sensitive area of policy and law. Since the time Ben Franklin started insisting on smallpox immunizations,[7] this public health issue has had passionate rhetoric on both sides of the debate.

I have worked with families whose children have documented contraindications for certain vaccines, and it is not a simple issue. And right now, a public discussion is happening about why people who are African-American might not trust being offered a first round of vaccination.[8] These are life-and-death issues.

That said, those on the front lines of public service, during a time of pandemic, are at higher risk of both getting infected, and spreading disease. Science shows vaccination will mitigate that risk. Thus, under the right circumstances, encouraging such employees to be vaccinated is the right thing to do, and in some cases, employers have made the decision that requiring vaccination is the right thing to do.

The consideration of this question is classic risk management. What critical services is your library providing to the community? What exposure to possible infection do those services create? Does social distancing, PPE, and sanitization mitigate those risks within acceptable tolerances, or would requiring vaccination of employees demonstrably make those employees and the community safer? Are there certain duties that merit requiring immunization, and other duties (jobs performed 100% remotely, for instance) that do not? And critical: is mass employee immunization in step with the approach of your local health department?[9]

There is no cookie-cutter answer to these questions, but a responsible decision to require immunization of employees as part of a well-developed and evolving Safety Plan should answer them all.

Step 5: Developing a robust policy that includes consideration of civil rights, the ADA[10] and privacy

So, let's say your library has followed Steps "1" through "4" and has decided it can, and should, update its Safety Plan to encourage or require immunization of employees.

The next step is developing a policy that:

Demonstrably does not discriminate or have an unintentional disparate impact on any protected class of people (race, religion, sex, etc.);
Has appropriate measures for people to opt-out based on a disability accommodation under the ADA or the New York Human Rights Law;
Protects the privacy of those who either meet the requirement, are granted an accommodation to not meet the requirement, or who must be terminated due to refusal to meet the requirement.[11]
Manages liability through good planning and the transmission of accurate information, not (just) waivers of liability.[12]

I also suggest that the library strongly consider ensuring, well in advance, that: 1) the vaccine is available to employees, and 2) that employees don’t have to pay for it. This is because 1) once the library has identified that there are risks in its operations that would be best mitigated through immunization, those activities should be limited until the mitigation is in place, and 2) there can be legal complications if the vaccination requires personal expense. While this advance planning and cost containment is not precisely a legal compliance concern, they are close first cousins, and should be addressed as part of the Safety Plan.

Step 6: If a library decides to require immunization, develop a PR Plan (optional, but a very good idea)

I don't need to tell a library audience that what a public library does on this topic will be scrutinized, criticized, and eventually, also a model for the rest of your community.[13] Since any decision on this point will have its critics, and also (hopefully) its fans, be ready to let your public know, simply and straightforwardly, the basis for your library's decision.

I like the classic "FAQ" approach. Here are two model FAQ's for two libraries that did the legal analysis and safety assessment, and come to the following decisions:

FAQ: I was told the library board is requiring all the employees to be vaccinated for COVID, is that true?

FAQ ANSWER: Since re-opening on DATE, the NAME Library has had a Safety Plan. Now our Safety Plan does include supporting voluntary immunization of employees.

FAQ: Voluntary? So you are not requiring it?

FAQ ANSWER: Our risk analysis and still-limited operations showed that we could meet the community's needs by requiring masks, social distancing, and routine sanitization. We have now added supporting employees in getting vaccinated on a voluntary basis.

FAQ: Will you ever require it?

FAQ ANSWER: Only if our operations change and an updated risk analysis shows us that it is best for our employees and for the community.

Another "FAQ" example, for a library that came to a different conclusion, is:

FAQ: I was told the board is requiring all the employees to be vaccinated for COVID, is that true?

FAQ ANSWER: Since re-opening on DATE, the NAME Library has had a Safety Plan. Now our Safety Plan does include mandatory immunization of employees who are able to be vaccinated.

FAQ: Why is the library requiring employees to get vaccinated?

FAQ ANSWER: Feedback shows that the community needs us providing critical services right now. Our risk analysis showed that in addition to requiring masks, social distancing, and sanitizations, immunization by employees would protect their health, and the community's, while we provide those services.

FAQ: The vaccine is not 100% available yet. Did your employees have to do this on their own?

FAQ ANSWER: Our library worked with [INSTITUTION] to make sure our employees had access to this safety measure, without cost to them.

And that's it.[14]

The important take-away I want to emphasize here is that for individual libraries, there are no quick answers to these questions.

Libraries of all types will be assessing their unique legal and risk positions, and will need to make carefully documented and executed decisions. Libraries within larger institutions may need to fight for consideration separate from other operations. Public libraries will need to consider the heightened transparency and public accountability they operate under. Library systems will be thinking about how they can protect their employees while also supporting their members. And for the employee on the ground, they'll be thinking about keeping themselves, their families, and their communities safe.

By taking careful, deliberate, and well-informed steps, the answers to the member's questions can be found.

Thank you for a vital question.

[1] December 18, 2020. For many of you, that means you've been shoveling lots of snow (we're looking at you, Binghamton).

[2] See the case Norman v. NYU Health Systems (2020) (SDNY), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180990 *; 19 Accom. Disabilities Dec. (CCH) P19-109

[3] And in this case, I use "library" in its broadest sense: public, association, and even libraries operating as part of a larger institution (such as a college, hospital, or museum). School libraries, in particular, may both fall under the policies of the institution they are within, but might also have different operations, activities, and exposure that warrant independent risk analysis.

[4] I can't be more specific than that, since in some cases, there may be "emergency" management clauses that could easily allow the requirement of further safety measures, while in other cases, there could be language that makes it clear such a requirement will have to be a point of discussion. The important take-away here is: if there is a contract in play, don't wing it. Bring in your lawyer.

[5] The actual answer will of course be in writing and will likely be much more extensive than "No problem!" It should also be included in the records of library leadership to document the appropriate level of risk analysis.

[6] When I say "controversial," I mean legally. The science is solid: immunization saves lives.

[7] Ironically, Franklin's young son would die of smallpox before he could be immunized, in part because Franklin's wife Deborah was wary of the new treatment. Franklin was devastated by the loss of his small, precocious son, and some scholars say it caused a rift in his marriage that was never healed.

[8] If you know your history, you know these fears are based in reality. If you want to learn more, a good place to start is this New York Times article: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/06/opinion/blacks-vaccinations-health.html?searchResultPosition=4

[9] Whenever possible, confirming Safety Plans, and significant revisions of Safety Plans, with the local health department is a very good idea.

[10] The ADA is a critical consideration here. A good place to start for further information on this is the EEOC, at https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-covid-19-and-ada-rehabilitation-act-and-other-eeo-laws. However, this is just a starting place; as you can see by the linked guidance, this part of your policy cannot be a simple cut-and-paste job.

[11] I know, this sounds cold; and it is. Considering if a library is actually prepared to terminate employees for refusing to meet the requirements should be part of your library's analysis here, too...because once you develop the policy and start requiring it, granting exceptions without justification can create serious legal complications.

[12] The member asks about waivers for employees who decide not to be immunized. A waiver of liability should only be used if it is part of a well-developed Safety Plan, and customized for the purpose by an attorney.

[13] Although I just did. Ah, rhetoric.

[14] I could go on with a few more FAQ's to illustrate the diversity of approaches available (they are kind of fun to write), but I trust you get it.

Tag

Heavy smells in public library policy

Submission Date

Tuesday, November 17, 2020

Question

I am an adjunct instructor in a library science program.

We were having a discussion regarding patrons with body odor or heavy smells (such as perfume or cigarette smoke). What really surprised me…. several of my students who work in public libraries said they have an official policy that patrons who smell are not allowed to stay and are to be asked to leave the library. This really surprised me. Legally is this allowed? Who is to decide what an acceptable/unacceptable level of smell.

Overall, I found the notion of kicking out patrons because of smells to be repulsive, disgusting, and a completely against WHY we exist. If this is legal, I want to know how a library could, in good conscience, do this…

Answer

There is a large array of case law,[1] academic articles, industry guidance, and news coverage on the subject of regulating smells in libraries (specifically, the smells of people and/or their belongings in libraries).[2]

Based on those materials—and in particular, the case law—my answer to the question "legally is this allowed?" has to be: YES. With a carefully considered policy, carefully followed, barring library patrons based on their "disturbing" odor has been ruled to be legal, just like barring other factors that disturb the operations of the library (noise, eating, running) can be.

But just because a library can bar "disturbing odor" doesn't mean I always advise my clients to do it.

Why? Because this is 2020.

In 2020, we know that the impact of barring people based solely on them being "disturbing" is fraught with risk,[3] both for legal reasons (claims based on the First Amendment, equal protection, due process, disability, etc.) and for reasons related to a library's mission (concerns related to the type of existential considerations raised by the member). [4]

Of course, in 2020, we also know that regardless of where you land on the question of "disturbing odor," this issue poses concerns from the other side, as well; a patron or employee trying to access or work in a library may find a smell (whether caused by another person, or by a condition of the building) to present an actual risk to their health (allergies, chemical sensitivities). So one person's access to the library may pose a risk to the access of another.

Finally, in 2020, while nothing is a sure bet, it is reasonable to expect that one of these days, one of the legal cases challenging a library's bar to access based on a "disturbing odor" is going to result in a policy or ejection being overturned. And while that currently-hypothetical case may turn on circumstances unique enough[5] to not bar all such policies, such a ruling could throw the current legal footing into question.

Which is why I offer this: rather than barring people due to "disturbing odor"[6] (which as the member points out, is a conclusion rooted in subjectivity) a library might be wise to consider planning, policies and action to:

Create "Scent-free zones" in your library where any perceptible odors, mold, dust, and use of substances associated with chemical sensitivities, are as minimized as possible. This can address the needs of people who are more sensitive to perfumes, chemical cleaners, and air fresheners...reducing the likelihood of complaints and concerns under the ADA.
When planning capital improvements, invest in an HVAC system that circulates fresh air into library spaces (with all due consideration to humidity control for your collection), reducing the accumulation/proliferation of all odors, and in general creating a healthier breathing environment.
Place seating near areas with more effective ventilation, and configure spaces to deter concentrations of patrons in less ventilated zones.
And most critically: Develop policies to address objective, quantifiable health hazards that might be signaled by smell, rather than barring subjective and hard-to-measure "disturbing odors."

It is this last bullet—related to safety—that I would like to dwell on.

Some smells are just that—smells. They may be perceived negatively, and perhaps even as a disruption, but to most people, they pose no risk.

Some smells are not just smells, but "tells"—byproducts indicative of conditions that are experienced by the individual carrying them (like it or not, we all have these). Some may be linked to a medical condition or disability, but in no way do they pose a safety threat to others. Many people who are perceived as "smelly" have "tells".

And finally, some smells are indicative of a potential health hazard to those in their proximity; for example: sulfur added to otherwise odorless natural gas, the odor of certain paints as they dry...or the smell of a staph infection in an open wound. These "evidence of danger" smells are the ones that libraries, who are legally obligated[7] to provide their patrons and employees with a safe environment, need to be concerned about, and should develop policies to address.

Need an anecdote to distinguish the smells from the tells from the hazards? Here's a scenario:

A man walks to the library. While walking, he treads in dog poop.

Because decades of smoking cigarettes have dulled the man's sense of smell, he does not notice that his shoe is coated in poop. However, as soon as he enters the library, a page smells the poop, and points out to the patron that not only is his shoe smelly, but it is leaving fecal residue on the floor.[8]

Because there are many health-related reasons why the library doesn't want dog poop on its floor, the man is asked to leave until his shoe is poop-free. The man leaves the library and visits his buddy across the street,[9] who lets him hose off his shoe in the back yard.

When the man returns to the library, he shows the page the clean shoe, and it is clear that the dog poop has been eliminated. However, dog poop being what it is, the smell lingers on the shoe. But insofar as the library is concerned, it no longer poses an active hazard to toddlers crawling on the Children's Room floor. The man is allowed to walk into the library, selects the latest John Grisham novel, and leaves, the odor of dog poop lingering in the Circulation Desk breeze.

And that is the difference between using a smell to mitigate a health hazard, and tolerating a potentially disturbing odor in a library. It is also how a library focuses on providing access and a safe environment for patrons and employees—while avoiding judgments rooted in subjectivity.

In posing this question, it is clear that the instructor is thinking about mission, about a library's role in its community, and about optimizing access to resources for all. But the instructor has also honed in on this "subjectivity" concern, by asking: "Who is to decide what an acceptable/unacceptable level of smell"?

It is that very subjectivity that brings legal peril to the current scheme of things. Sooner or later, the right combination of circumstances will arise, and a judge will rule that simply barring someone from a library based on nothing more than a bad stink is a legal violation.

Therefore, as we move past 2020, and into an era that will, all signs show, be more in need of information access and authentication than any era previously, I offer this template policy to "flip the script" on how libraries address the issue of odor.

The ABC library is committed to access for all. With regard to odors in the library, this means:

We provide a designated scent-free area for patrons with chemical or scent sensitivities;
We require any odor that is a sign of a possible health risk (hazardous chemical, fecal matter, rotting food, smoke, communicable infection or any substance that can damage the library or pose a risk to those in it) be addressed, and if a risk is likely to be present, mitigated immediately;
We work to find people who may be bothered by certain non-harmful odors, such as perfume, cologne, or "body odor" of other patrons, space in our scent-free area, or near windows or well-ventilated areas.

We appreciate that as humans, our patrons bring a wide array of odors into our space, and not everyone appreciates that smell of others. If you need a scent-free area or well-ventilated area, please let us know. If you notice any odor or other factor that could be indicative of a health hazard, please immediately alert staff so it can be addressed per our policies.

Meanwhile, the library's Code of Conduct should state some version of: Any activity or substance posing a health hazard to patrons and employees is prohibited.

And finally, internally, I suggest this protocol[10] for addressing reports of smells indicative of potential hazards:

Receive the report. Note the date, time, person reporting it, and what is reported. Ensure a qualified person immediately assesses the report. If there is a possible health hazard, involve the appropriate personnel or outside resources to develop an immediate response/mitigation plan, with all due respect for safety, privacy, access, and due process.

And that's it. From where I see it, while the status quo is legal, the future of "The Great Library Smell Debate" can shift to focus on two things: access, and safety.[11] Factors that are subjective or based on personal preference ("bad smells" causing "disruption") are currently legally valid, but there is the possibility of a successful legal challenge. If a library is concerned about the impact of such policies on mission, and wants to avoid subjective value judgments about smell, developing policies that focus on access and safety might be a more appropriate approach.

That said, to reiterate my honest answer to the question: right now, based on case law, "subjective" policies about "disturbing" odor, if narrowly tailored to serve a valid purpose[12], and executed properly, remain enforceable. But as I have outlined, they can pose a risk.

Make no mistake—sometimes odor needs to be addressed, and from many perspectives. But the law provides many options, and using a focus on access and safety is one of them.

Thank you for a thoughtful question.

[1] The most authoritative and influential are: Lu v. Hulme (2015), Kreimer v. Bureau of Police for the Town of Morristown (1992).

[2] Trusting that an audience of libraries knows how to find research material, I'll simply say that the materials cited in the guide posted here (http://www.homelesslibrary.com/uploads/1/3/0/1/13014906/body_odor_handout.pdf) show the range of coverage and thought on this topic (at "Ask the Lawyer," we don't reinvent the wheel).

[3] This risk springs from the fact that, objectively speaking, every human being "stinks." Of course, for a variety of reasons, sometimes our personal odor is more overtly and broadly perceptible than at other times, and depending on an array of cultural or physiological factors, may or may not be welcome by them.

[4] For a thorough discussion of the mission-related considerations of imposing odor bans, I recommend the article "It is a Non-Negotiable Order": Public Libraries' Body Odor Bans and the Ableist Politics of Purity." By no means an unbiased academic exercise, you can easily tell where this author is coming from (they find odor bans antithetical to the purpose of libraries).

[5] These cases turn not only on precise wording, but on how the policy was applied, and the law in that precise locality.

[6] "Disruptive smell" while real, is, of course, subjective, since as I mentioned in footnote 3, all humans, to some degree, "stink," but "stink" is a relative term. In that regard, I am reminded of the classic scene in Frank Herbert's "Dune," when young Paul Atreides first arrives at the home of his future allies, the Fremen. Paul perceives their cavernous home, called a "seitch" as having a wretched stink, but just as he is about to show his disgust, his mother says "How rich the odors of your seitch..." saving her son from a fatal social blunder. Of course, they go on to not only get used to the smell, but to conquer the planet.

[7] By a variety of laws, which can include local health codes, OSHA regulations, labor law, union contracts, local law.

[8] What he actually says is "Um...sir? Hi, good to see you again. Hey, it looks like maybe you stepped in some dog poop?" Thank goodness, not all people talk like lawyers.

[9] I bet people who live near libraries collect stories like this.

[10] Some larger libraries, or libraries that operate in close relationship with municipalities, will have well-developed hazard response plans, which this protocol should fit right into. Others will not have that level of planning, or the resources to involve "qualified" internal personnel in assessing a reported hazard. For that, it is good to have a relationship with the local county health department.

[11] Can a person bring in a smell so foul and pervasive that, even if it doesn't cause permanent injury, can be considered a "hazard"? Anything that causes eyes to tear up/swell, retching, headaches, or violent coughing/sneezing in the general population can be considered a "hazard" (which is a term whose definition changes from law to law, but is used in its more generic sense here). But getting some back-up from the health department is a good way to ensure that you get solid confirmation of this.

[12] Have your lawyer review this policy no less than annually!

Tag

Policy

Public Libraries

Debt Collection and Library Fines

Submission Date

Monday, July 3, 2023

Question

We have become aware that a recent law in New York shortened the statute of limitations to collect consumer debts. Does this affect our library’s ability to enforce and collect library fines?

Answer

Libraries likely do not have any statute of limitations for collecting overdue or replacement fines because the law does not consider library fines as “debts.” As such, any change to how long a “debt” may be collected does not matter for libraries. This privilege extends to third parties who collect fines on behalf of libraries. Let’s dive in deeper to help understand why.

In February of 2019, a different WNYLRC member had a question regarding libraries and patron bankruptcy. Part of that answer addressed whether bankruptcy discharged replacement and overdue fines due to the library. We advised the member that it was likely that overdue and replacement fines would not be discharged in bankruptcy because libraries do not engage in the types of “business dealings” that can create a “debt” in the first place. That answer was taking case law on debt collection and applying it to the bankruptcy context. Here, the same case law is much more directly applicable. Understanding the full picture, however, requires a step back to examine why these Federal cases are relevant to interpreting a recent New York State law.

In 2022, New York’s Consumer Credit Fairness Act (“CCFA”) went into effect. One of the provisions of the CCFA was reduction in the statute of limitations, from six to three years, for most types of consumer debt. The types of transactions the CCFA applies to are “consumer credit transactions.” That term is defined as “a transaction wherein credit is extended to an individual and the money, property, or service which is the subject of the transaction is primarily for personal, family or household purposes.”

There is no case law or official guidance in New York that directly addresses libraries. There are, however, interpretations of federal statutes, such as the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), which use nearly identical terms to the New York statute. Under the FDCPA, a “debt” is defined as “[a]ny obligation or alleged obligation of a consumer to pay money arising out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.” Almost identical to New York’s definition under the CCFA. Given these similarities, and that most state debt-collection statutes are modeled on the analogous federal statutes, looking at federal interpretations is persuasive.

Tierney v. Unique is a 2018 federal case originating in South Carolina. There, a collection agency attempting to collect library fines on behalf of a library in Charleston was sued under the FDCPA. The court ruled in favor of the collection agency, holding that

“Plaintiff has failed to allege a proper claim, as he has not sufficiently pled that he has been the object of collection activity arising from ‘consumer debt.’ The borrowing of library materials, and the failure to return or timely return them which results in library fines, does not constitute such a ‘consumer debt.’”

Notably, in Tierney, the library had added an administrative cost to the fines to offset the expense and having to offload the collection’s effort to a third party. This did not seem to affect the judge’s decision. Tierney also cited a 1997 case from the Northern District of Illinois which provided a full explanation of why library fines are different from consumer debt and credit transactions. This is the case we previously explored in the bankruptcy context. In Riebe v. Juergensmeyer, the Court wrote that

“we agree with Defendants’ assertion that “public libraries do not engage in business transactions with patrons -- they lend public property to patrons, free of charge.” . . . A library is not a center of commerce but rather a “place dedicated to quiet, to knowledge, and to beauty,” and “a place to test or expand ideas . . . .” . . . Moreover, “an adequate library is essential for the dissemination of knowledge.” . . . “Its very purpose is to aid in the acquisition of knowledge through reading, writing and quiet contemplation.” . . . Unfortunately, when one fails to return library materials, he frustrates this purpose by depriving the public the full-use of the tremendous resources that a library has to offer. . . Consequently, the court finds that the borrowing of a library book is not the type of conduct that the FDCPA considers a transaction. As such, the ensuing obligation to pay for failure to return the book did not create a “debt” under the FDCPA.”

The takeaway is this: Libraries probably do not have any statute of limitations whatsoever for overdue and replacement fines—whether collected on their own behalf or sold to collection agencies. There are some limitations. For instance, if the library charges an upfront fee for a DVD—that could be outside the scope. For run-of-the-mill overdue and replacement fines, however, courts seem to say that libraries are free to collect such fines by whatever means and by whatever timeline they see fit. Since most library fines are not “debt,” the statutes of limitations that apply to “debt” are simply inapplicable.

There are two caveats to this answer. First, this reasoning likely applies to commonplace overdue and replacement fines, but not necessarily to every conceivable fine that may be imposed. As such, your library may wish to check its fine/fee/replacement policies and its collection contracts with collectors, to ensure they do not unknowingly create an enforcement limit where it would otherwise not apply. Members who want to ensure their specific policies and contracts do not create limits should confer with their attorneys for a written opinion.

Second, the fact that a certain action is legal does not mean that it is the right course of action for a particular library. Having libraries as a “free” resource has always been a goal in New York – and the Education Law which establishes the legal footing for libraries expressly states as such. In order to further this goal, some libraries have chosen to move towards a “fine-free” model. A recent article in the American Library Association delves into why this model may be becoming more common. That being said, every library is different, and fines may play a bigger or smaller role in maintaining core services. Any decision about fines and how aggressively to pursue them is ultimately a balancing act that each library must decide for themselves.

Tag

Considering accessibility in library statements and purchases

Submission Date

Wednesday, November 4, 2020

Question

Should our library have an accessibility statement? And should we consider accessibility when making purchases?

Answer

Yes, and yes.

Every library, historical society, archives, or museum, if open to the public, should have accessibility information posted at its premises, in its printed brochures and fliers, and on its website.

While it can (and often should, based on the size and type of the library), this "accessibility statement" does not have to cite the ADA.[1] Rather, it can just be a simple statement about your institution's commitment to access, along with some basic information about what common accommodations are on site—and critically, how to get in touch if a person needs more.

Here is some sample language:

The ABC Library is committed to access for all. We currently [insert all current accessibility features, including ramps, bathrooms, parking, adaptive technology, etc.]. As renovations are planned and new items are purchased, our accessibility grows.

Questions about our resources and any accommodations can be directed to [PERSON] at [PHONE] or [EMAIL]. To ensure timely and thorough assessment of accommodation requests, we will confirm the details of the request with you, assess the request, and let you know the options we can offer as soon as possible.

Requests related to specific events should ideally be received at least two weeks before the event, to allow time for proper assessment and planning.

Some requests might not be within the scope of what we can do, or may be met through alternatives, but the ABC Library board of trustees, director, and employees are committed to making our library the best it can be for everyone in our community.

Further, every library should have an accessibility/universal design section in its purchasing/procurement policy.

Just something simple, like:

When generating Request for Proposals and soliciting quotes, the ABC Library will assess the goods and/or services to be purchased and develop criteria to: 1) assure ADA compliance; 2) incorporate consideration of universal design; and 3) position the library to promote accessibility based on established, current, and properly sourced research.

Why is this important? Well, aside from being a kind, considerate thing to do[2], it is a form of legal risk management for facilities required to follow the ADA.

Pre-emptive outreach on accessibility helps people plan visits and find ways to access services, rather than look to the law for alternatives. And by building accessibility priorities into the earliest phases of procurement, your institution makes sure it thinks about accessibility before a purchase becomes a problem.

Once a library resolves to do these two things, there are endless resources out there on how to write policy, compose statements, and how to consider the ADA when making purchases, designing signage, and updating websites. But resolving to make these things a priority is the first step. So...

Should your library have an accessibility statement? And should your library consider accessibility when making purchases?

Yes, and yes.

[1] A longer "Ask the Lawyer" answer regarding precise ADA obligations is RAQ #153. This is just a sweet and simple guide to some basic concerns.

[2] Even an institution with a 200-year-old building with no elevator on a street with no parking can be welcoming if the right signage and alternate means of accessing services have been communicated and properly arranged beforehand.

Tag