Policy

It is well established that a not-for-profit organization can benefit from volunteer labor.  This is true even when the labor brings the organization tangible benefits, like the money from a bake sale, or as in this case, a research fee. 

But when using volunteer services and charging a fee, a library (or any chartered not-for-profit) in New York must engage in a systematic analysis to ensure the arrangement is in step with numerous laws and regulations.  How can a library, museum, or archives do this? 

Follow the three-step process below.

STEP ONE

First, identify the services the institution would like to provide through volunteer labor. 

This is rather like writing a job description or hire letter.  An example based on the member’s scenario could look like this:

Research Volunteer

Under the general oversight of [paid position] in [department], the Research Volunteer performs specific research tasks related to personal requests by [institution] members and other users. These tasks are not to routine operations of [department], but benefit the public and [institution] by serving members and others in a way directly related to [institution]’s mission to [insert mission], as well as raising revenue in support of that mission. 

Your hours and participation as a Research Volunteer are voluntary, but we do ask that you work with [person] to coordinate your time; this will enable us to support your work, and keep things organized.  This work is a valuable service [institution] can only provide through the services of volunteers, and we thank you for your dedication and hard work!

The essential elements of this first step are:

• clarifying who is supervising/helping the volunteer;
• clarifying the tasks of the volunteer;
• specifying that the tasks are not routine duties of paid staff;
• confirming that the work is voluntary; and
• documenting that the work is directly related to the institution’s mission.

You’ll see why these are important in the Steps Two and Three!

STEP TWO

Next, check your organization’s founding laws, charter, founding documents[1], bylaws and plan of service (I call these “core rules”) for any terms that apply to the service you defined in Step One. 

Look at the laws and documents.  Is there something preventing the institution from charging a fee for this specific service?  Is there any cap on that fee?

This exercise will vary greatly from institution to institution, since many variables can impact what’s in the “core rules.”  Here are just a few examples:

A public library could never charge a member to borrow a book or to use the internet, because Education Law Section 262 requires that public libraries be free (to cardholders).

For a private library, its charter could contain an express rule that certain services must remain free—a restriction that might not be found in the law, but could be just as enforceable.  A similar condition could be in its bylaws, or a donation document.

And if an institution is a 501(c)(3), care must be taken to make sure the revenue generated by the service is “substantially related” to the institution’s not-for-profit mission, or the institution could risk having to pay “unrelated business income tax.”  The service should also be reviewed to ensure it is not an “excess benefit transaction” or a non-disregarded membership benefit.[2]  A mis-step on any one of these could have serious tax consequences.

When doing the “Step Two” analysis, it is ideal to confirm your conclusions with a lawyer.

STEP THREE

Once an institution uses Step Two to confirm it can charge for a service, it is time to return to your description from Step One and make it official, by putting the scope of work and details in a “Volunteer Letter.” 

Why so formal?  Because in recent years, the State of New York has cracked down on enforcement of quasi-volunteer, or just plain muddy, instances of volunteer labor at not-for-profit institutions.  This has even included examining perks and partial payments to volunteers!

Why is that?  While not-for-profit volunteering is unequivocally allowed, like anything, the system can be abused.  To avoid that, and to create clarity in these critical relationships, the New York Department of Labor has issued some pretty strict guidelines, such as:

Unpaid volunteers at not-for-profits may not:

• replace or augment paid staff to do the work of paid staff
• do anything but tasks traditionally reserved for volunteers
• be required to work certain hours
• be required to perform duties involuntarily
• be under any contract of hire by any other person or business express or implied
• be paid for their services, except for expense reimbursement

Sound familiar? This is where the work you did in Step One pays off!  By identifying the work as part of a “Volunteer Program,” clarifying that the service is offered through the hard work of volunteers (and never paid staff), and that there is no compensation to the volunteer, your documentation will be ready to show compliance in the event the Department of Labor audits your institution (which, from time to time, they do).

Final thoughts

Volunteers can be critical contributors to an organization.  If allowed by your organization’s core rules, a not-for-profit can absolutely benefit from the fruits of their labor.  By following the steps outlined above, and setting the relationship up carefully, a not-for-profit (and its volunteers) can reap great rewards.

The essential element of this is clear documentation.  A letter to every volunteer, stating their role, the rules of the position,[3] that it is not replacing or supplementing paid staff, and thanking them for their service, will position an organization to easily demonstrate compliance. 

A quick annual check with the institution’s insurance carrier, to make sure volunteers and their activities are covered by the institution’s insurance, is wise, too.

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.

 

Not only is it legal, but it is required by law.

When the new provisions of New York’s Public Health § 1399-o first went into effect June 19, 2019, “Ask the Lawyer” got a question about enforcement, so we wrote a guide for implementation. 

While hopefully the “guide” has been useful (it warmed my heart to see one library[1] getting media coverage for putting up signs with wording I suggested), it might be easy to miss the actual heft of this law as we think about the details of implementation.

So here, without too much distracting commentary, is the text of the new law:

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. [emphasis added]

Seems pretty straightforward to me…“outdoor areas” as in: the outside (with an exception for nearby residential properties).

Despite this straightforward language, since I wrote the “guide,” we have gotten some questions from members stating that their local health department claims they will only enforce compliance within 100 feet of exits and entrances.

This feedback really concerned me.  First, it is contrary to the plain language of the law.  Second (but really first), libraries are finding new ways to reach out to the public every day; this includes outdoor programming.[2]  “Outdoor areas” of the library serve the public, too.

So, inspired by this latest question, and the feedback we’ve received, I called my local Erie County Department of Health, and reached  Rob Tyler, who works on smoking enforcement. 

Rob and I had a nice chat about how sometimes the language in these laws can be open to interpretation, but this seemed pretty clear.  But then he suggested: “You should probably call the State.  They are one ones who can give guidance on the law.”

So, after thanking Rob for his time, I called the General Counsel’s Office at the New York State Department of Health, and was directed to attorney Megan Mutolo.[3]

Megan also agreed with me on the plain language of “outdoor areas.”  That said, she urged me to urge libraries to build a relationship with their county health departments so libraries are ready to enforce the new law together. 

This is good advice from Megan.  Since New York tries to encourage “municipal home rule,”[4] as much as possible is left to local officials from within a particular community.  This means that local health departments can have their own take on the new law…one that you can discuss with them while forming a meaningful alliance.[5]

So, to the “helpful tips” in the “guide,” inspired by this question, I add: Consider making a connection with your local health department, and reviewing the precise language of the new law together.  Many departments, if they have not given the new law a careful review, might overlook the requirement about “outdoor areas.”  But that language is there, and when read in context, is very clear—as is the library’s obligation to enforce this law.

Thanks for your question!

---

[1] Here’s to you, Saratoga Public Library!

[2] As but one example, the Buffalo and Erie County Public Library’s Central Library has a great new “Reading Garden” in downtown Buffalo.

[3] NOTE: I called both these people on a Friday afternoon.  Not only did I get quick answers, but they were friendly, too!  I guess you don’t go into health law unless you really care about people.

[4] My words, not Megan’s.

[5] I know they have enough on their plate already, but this might be something a library system can help with.

This question has two parts: 1) liability for copyright infringement based on a live reading (without staging) of a dramatic work; and 2) liability for events at library facilities.

Let’s tackle part 1 first. 

Section 110 of the Copyright Act sets out a number of exceptions for educational and charitable use of copyrighted works.[1]  Unfortunately, “dramatic works” (plays) are largely excluded from those exceptions.  So while Section 110 is generous (for instance, there is a total exemption from liability for performance of non-dramatical musical works at horticultural fairs!)[2], “performance” of dramatic works (even without staging) is not as excused as other types of use.  

The other exception that could apply to the member’s question is of course “fair use.”  I won’t take up too much of this “Ask the Lawyer” to discuss that option, since the event described here does not sound like it would meet the criteria. [3]

For this reason, any library or venue asked or planning to host a reading of a dramatic work—even without staging it, even without charging admission—should be very cautious.  Unless there is a confirmed exemption under 110 (which would be for classroom use, or for a performance for people with visual impairments), or a documented “fair use” under 107,  proper licensing should be obtained.

And now for part 2. 

Most libraries have some form of policy, and maybe a “facility use contract,” allowing groups or individuals to use their space.  Some charge a small rental fee, others do not.  Some have express restrictions on use by businesses or political groups,[4] others do not.

What’s important to the member’s question is that any use of library facilities should be governed by clear, uniformly applied, mutually-understood terms that:

• ensure ease of distinguishing official library events from those simply using the library;
• require any outside group to expressly assent to following library rules and procedures;
• protect the library from any third-party claims based on the group’s use of the premises.

When it comes to copyright, this last part is essential, since the copyright law allows for “vicarious” liability that can include “innocent” (meaning, they didn’t know about it, or didn’t instigate it) infringers. 

This is what the last Congressional committee amending the Copyright Law has to say about “vicarious liability” for performances:

Vicarious Liability for Infringing Performances.

The committee has considered and rejected an amendment to this section intended to exempt the proprietors of an establishment, such as a ballroom or night club, from liability for copyright infringement committed by an independent contractor, such as an orchestra leader. A well-established principle of copyright law is that a person who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner is an infringer, including persons who can be considered related or vicarious infringers. To be held a related or vicarious infringer in the case of performing rights, a defendant must either actively operate or supervise the operation of the place wherein the performances occur, or control the content of the infringing program, and expect commercial gain from the operation and either direct or indirect benefit from the infringing performance. The committee has decided that no justification exists for changing existing law, and causing a significant erosion of the public performance right.

As a not-for-profit institution, a library may have some more defenses than the average night club owner, but there is still a threat of liability. 

So how do venues reduce the risks posed by “vicarious” liability? Often, they ask the main performer, or the entity renting the facility, to “indemnify” the venue for any liability related to the performance.  To ensure they are actually protected, they also demand a certain amount and type of insurance, and require that the venue be a “named insured.” [5]  Later, if they are sued for an infringing performance, the venue will invoke the indemnity, and be defended by and have their damages paid by the renter or performer. 

So, to recap, the following factors are potentially relevant to both parts of the member’s question:

• This particular use of a copyrighted work does not seem to fall under the exceptions of Copyright Law 110;
• A reading of a dramatic work could be a “fair use” under Copyright Law 107, but that conclusion should be carefully documented, and again, does not seem to fit the described situation;
• A library should have a policy and contract that enables the clear distinction between library and non-library events;
• A library should have a “facility use” contract that protects it from any risks of allowing others to use its facility, including performance-related liabilities;
• A library should have insurance coverage that takes into consideration use of its facility by others, including use for performances;
• For certain high-risk uses (if allowed) a library can require an indemnification and insurance;
• For certain high-risk uses, a library can simply decide the event is too risky.

This assessment of risks and ways to mitigate them is called “risk management,” and the member’s question is a great example of how to start the process.  So, what was that question again?

…regardless of whether an audience is brought out for the performance or not, regardless of who is 'sponsoring' it, this would be in violation of the creator's (who is still alive) copyright claim to the work. Further, that the library would most likely be the liable party.

Am I right?

Except for would changing “the liable party” to “a liable party”: yes, the member is correct…there is a risk.  How can this assessed risk be managed? One of four ways:

• Have the group obtain written permission from the rights holder (for a reading at that precise location);
• Locate a 110 or 107 exception;
• Require an indemnification and proof of insurance from the group; or
• Make a risk-management decision to not host the event.

Thank you for your careful question!

Exeunt lawyer, stage left.

This question has two parts, so I will re-state them for clarity:

Is it legal to forward that charge on to the patron as they are the party who cancelled the service?

Answer: no.

If this behavior becomes habitual (a request is made, the patron cancels past the 48 hour minimum time frame, we get invoiced), does the library have any recourse per ADA compliance law?

Answer: yes.

For more on both of these, see below!

This submission to “Ask the Lawyer” is a good companion to a recent query about arranging ASL interpreters, posted under the title “ADA Compliance When Screening Movies” (we’ll call it “Screening Movies”), on January 7, 2019. 

“Screening Movies” sets out some of the fundamentals of ADA compliance in the ASL interpreter realm, so as a foundation for the answer to this question, please take a look at it for some essential background.

[We’ll pause while you read “Screening Movies” and absorb the basics.]

Okay, have you got the fundamentals of ASL-related ADA compliance?  Great!  Now we’ll move to the advanced work required by these questions.

The answer to the member’s first question is “No,” because, per federal regulations[1]:

 (c) Charges. A public accommodation may not impose a surcharge on a particular individual with a disability or any group of individuals with disabilities to cover the costs of measures, such as the provision of auxiliary aids….

While any regulation is of course open to interpretation, the United States Department of Justice—the body charged with enforcement of the ADA—offers this commentary on surcharges related to accommodations:

One medical association sought approval to impose a charge against an individual with a disability…where that person had stated he or she needed an interpreter for a scheduled appointment, the medical provider had arranged for an interpreter to appear, and then the individual requiring the interpreter did not show up for the scheduled appointment. Section 36.301(c) of the 1991 title III regulation prohibits the imposition of surcharges to cover the costs of necessary auxiliary aids and services. As such… providers cannot pass along to their patients with disabilities the cost of obtaining an interpreter, even in situations where the individual cancels his or her appointment at the last minute or is a ‘‘no-show'' for the scheduled appointment. The… provider, however, may charge for the missed appointment if all other[s] … are subject to such a charge in the same circumstances.

In other words, cancellation fees or other obligations imposed upon the general public can be equally applied to those who require ADA accommodations, but any charge specifically related to an ADA accommodation cannot. 

There are, however, several ways to address the need of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing users to change their arrangements.

1.  Renegotiate your interpreter contract to shift away from cancellation fees

This of course requires cooperation by your ASL agency, but it is feasible. 

One approach is to use a contract that guarantees a base or “stand-by” rate that is assured to your provider (regardless of utilization). For example, for $####/year, your organization gets ### hours of services, in up to ### separate instances; this amount is paid not matter what. 

This gives both your library, and the provider, some fiscal stability as you serve the needs of your community.  It is an approach that might not work for libraries with small budgets, but collaboration with a system, council, or network can sometimes use this approach.

2.  Renegotiate your contract to tighten the cancellation window and reduce the fee

24 hours’ notice and a cancellation fee (not paying for the whole service value) is much more reasonable!

Again, this requires cooperation by our agency, and in you location, it might be a seller’s market.[2]  But it doesn’t hurt to negotiate![3]

3.   Know your budget

As described in “Screening Movies,” the obligations of libraries will vary wildly from institution to institution.  What might be “reasonable” to a large urban library might be an “undue burden” [4] for a small village library with a much smaller budget.  But no matter the size or budget, as “Screening Movies” states, every library should have an accommodations plan—and that plan should have a line in the library’s budget.

When a library has a budget for routine ADA accommodations (as opposed to one-time capital improvements or ad hoc needs of employees), it can help provide users with meaningful information about the libraries ability to provide those services.  It can also position your library to show if the cost of an accommodation truly would be an “undue burden,” (and thus not an obligation) as defined by the ADA.

For members of the Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing communities, access to information is critical, and a public library’s commitment to assuring it is vital. 

The member’s foresight and attention to stewarding this resource and making it as accessible as possible is exactly what is required.  And as can be seen, just as critical is finance committee and budget input on how to make the most of assets and budgets that help assure access and legal compliance.

---

[1] 28 C.F.R. § 36.301 “Eligibility criteria.”

[2] A good resource when considering an interpreter contract is here: https://rid.org/about-rid/about-interpreting/hiring-an-interpreter/.

[3] I don’t mean to imply that this member didn’t negotiate.  In my experience, librarians are often tough and forward-thinking hagglers.

[4] Undue burden means significant difficulty or expense. In determining whether an action would result in an undue burden, factors to be considered include –

• (1) The nature and cost of the action needed under this part;
• (2) The overall financial resources of the site or sites involved in the action; the number of persons employed at the site; the effect on expenses and resources; legitimate safety requirements that are necessary for safe operation, including crime prevention measures; or the impact otherwise of the action upon the operation of the site;
• (3) The geographic separateness, and the administrative or fiscal relationship of the site or sites in question to any parent corporation or entity;
• (4) If applicable, the overall financial resources of any parent corporation or entity; the overall size of the parent corporation or entity with respect to the number of its employees; the number, type, and location of its facilities; and
• (5) If applicable, the type of operation or operations of any parent corporation or entity, including the composition, structure, and functions of the workforce of the parent corporation or entity.

 

Draft and final Environmental Impact Studies (or “EIS”) must be accessible during the “public comment” period of a construction or remediation project.  After that, a library can discard them.

For readers who aren’t familiar with these documents: EIS are mandated reports that show the complete scope of possible “significant negative environmental impacts” certain types of projects can have.  They are produced by a project’s “Lead Agency” (generally a major figure in the project), who must ensure that copies of both draft and final EIS are made available to the public for a period of “public comment.” 

To comply with these disclosure requirements, the Lead Agency must both post the EIS on the internet, and provide a hard copy upon request.  As an alternative to providing on-demand hard copies, environmental regulations also allow the Lead Agency to place copies of an EIS “in a public library…,” where they must be available for viewing and copying during the public comment period (which is a minimum of 30 days, but can go much, much longer[1]). 

This “public comment” period is critical.  When done right, it enables clarity and transparency even when a project’s approvals span multiple agencies (like zoning boards, preservation boards, and a legislative body).  This allows the average citizen to provide timely comments about on things like environmental hazards, land use, historic preservation, and design.  So the role of the library in ensuring public access is valuable.

As the member’s question appreciates, EIS can have value even after the “public comment” period is closed.  Long after a project is complete, an EIS can reveal site conditions relevant to health and safety.  For professionals like urban planners, environmentalists, architects, and attorneys, the information in an EIS can be very useful.  And from the local history perspective, an EIS can show, decades later, what a village, town, or city perceived as a danger, asset, or cultural resource.  Coupled with building permits and variances, that information can show who was allowed to build what in a particular village, town, or city.  For this reason, I predict EIS will be important resources to the historians of the future. 

To assess if a printed EIS should be retained by the library, libraries can use their normal accession evaluation process.  One thing to consider in such an evaluation: the NY Department of Environmental Conservation retains copies of all EIS (in a manner that accords with the DEC’s own record-keeping policies).  Personally, I do think there is value in retaining the local hard copy, but as the member states, these things can take up a lot of room!

One thing that can make the entire process around EIS easier for a library is having an “EIS Acceptance Form” that is signed by the “Lead Agency” when they drop off the copies for required disclosure. Remember, use of the library is a courtesy that allows the Lead Agency to escape making numerous on-demand copies, so they should be very gracious about signing such an agreement!

I have supplied the essential elements of such a form below, and added a few non-required but library mission-centric terms to them.[2]   

The most helpful feature of this template form is the requirement that the “Lead Agency” notify the library that the public comment period is over; this way, a library can receive express confirmation of when the time to officially make the EIS available has ended, and the decision to dispose of or accession it can be made.

Thank you for this thoughtful question.

TEMPLATE EIS AVAILABILITY REQUEST FORM

The State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) requires that draft and final Environment Impact Studies (EISs) be posted on publicly accessible web sites by the “Lead Agency” for the project, and to provide hard copies on demand.

Regulations allow a lead agency to place copies of the EIS in a public library instead of making a large number of individual copies.  By filling out this form, you, as “Lead Agency,” are requesting that the [NAME] Library place ____ printed copies of an EIS for availability to the general public, and expressly authorize the creation of as many copies as needed by the public, to fulfill your disclosure obligations under SEQRA. 

Further Terms Agreed to By Lead Agency

As a condition of assisting with access during the public comment period, the ___  [insert number] physical copies provided by Lead Agency shall become the physical property of the Library, who shall have an irrevocable license to duplicate the EIS, in any medium now in existence or further developed. After being notified by the Lead Agency of the close of the comment period, the library may retain the physical copies, or dispose of them, at its sole discretion.

Lead Agency also hereby commits to remunerate the library for any request for a copy to be modified per ADA accessibility needs, including but not limited to conversion to braille, large print, or for use with an electronic reader.  Such copies shall remain the property of the Library.

Lead Agency will notify the library via an e-mail to [ADDRESS] when the EIS is no longer required to be available for public comment and duplication.

The Lead Agency employee or agent signing this EIS AVAILABILITY REQUEST FORM is an authorized signatory of the Lead Agency.

LEAD AGENCY:___________________________________

CONTACT AT LEAD AGENCY: ___________________________________

TITLE OF CONTACT: ___________________________________

PHONE NUMBER: ___________________________________

EMAIL: ___________________________________

PROJECT NAME: ___________________________________

PROJECT ADDRESS(ES): ___________________________________

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD START DATE: ___________________________________

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD END DATE (if able to be determined): ___________________________________

 

SIGNED ON THIS __________ DAY OF ____________, 20_____.

SIGNATURE:__________________________

PRINT NAME:__________________________

TITLE:____________________________________

 

[NOTE: Any template form should be reviewed by a library’s attorney for conformity with charter, bylaws, and current policy]

 

Before we get to the nitty-gritty on this question (and we will), let’s reflect on why libraries charge fines and replacement costs in the first place:

• To encourage timely return of materials
• To offset staff time and resources consumed by retrieval efforts
• To replace items when retrieval efforts are ineffective

And always, lurking in the background, is the notion that fines and replacement costs are an alternative to the most under-utilized section of the NYS Education law, the criminal provision in Section 265:

Whoever wilfully detains any book…belonging to any public or incorporated library…shall be punished by a fine of not less than one nor more than twenty-five dollars, or by imprisonment in jail not exceeding six months…..

So far, I have not had a client use their “one phone call” to let me know they have been arrested on an “265,” but the possibility is never far from my mind.

Of course, no one picks a library career to pursue their dream of arresting people who love (and lose) books.  And, although less draconian, I bet no one picks a library career for the joy of assessing late fees.  That said, library materials costs money, and people can be irresponsible about returning items to the library.  So what’s an institution to do?

Some libraries are experimenting with no-fine models[1], since fines can have a disproportionate impact on those in poverty.  Others have great success with routine “amnesty” days and other creative ways to take the sting out of returning books late. And still others want to make sure that the traditional model is as streamlined and legally compliant as possible.  That is what the member’s question is about.

A “bankruptcy discharge policy” is a logical component of a library’s approach to fines, replacement costs, and efforts to collect them.  It addresses the potential “dischargeability” (wiping out) of library fines when a person seeks the protection and “fresh start” created by bankruptcy.  It can also help libraries (and their collection agencies) follow the law, which gives people seeking bankruptcy very specific protections.

Before we address the member’s specific questions about adopting such a policy, it is important to take a moment to reflect on (legal) language.  This is because there is a basis to argue that overdue fines and replacement costs, while valid conditions of having a library card, might not qualify as typical commercial “debts;” this could mean that in many cases, libraries owed fines and replacement moneys might not be precisely “creditors.” This is pointed out in the 1997 case Riebe v. Jeurgensmeyer[2], where the judge writes:

The origin of this federal case is a minor's failure to return a library book. In 1995, Elizabeth Riebe, a minor, borrowed a library book from the St. Charles Public Library ("the Library"). The due date came and went without Ms. Riebe returning it. The Library waited. After Ms. Riebe failed to return the book for six months, the Library retained Defendants [a collection firm] to write to her parents ("Plaintiffs") requesting payment of $ 29.95. 

Addressed to Plaintiffs, the letter, as Plaintiffs see it, implied that they, or their daughter, could be arrested and imprisoned for intentional theft of public library property. Attached to the letter was a copy of the provisions of the Illinois Criminal Code. Rather than paying the $ 29.95 or at least returning the book, and thereby putting the matter to rest, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in federal court, alleging that Defendants' letter violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq.(1996).

In ruling that the FDCPA doesn’t apply to attempts collect library fines (and thus that the library could not be liable for the zeal of their collection agency under the FDCPA) federal Judge Charles R. Norgle (who clearly esteems libraries) wrote:

Here, there was no initial "business dealing" creating an obligation to pay, only an obligation to return a library book. In theory, this may have created some type of contract, but not in the context of a "business dealing" as contemplated by the FDCPA, e.g, the purchase of consumer goods or services. … Rather, the borrowing of a library book is a public privilege that largely depends on trust and the integrity of the borrower. [emphasis added]

Now, the FDCPA is not the Bankruptcy Code, and it is possible that a person seeking relief from debt under the Code and might be able to reduce or completely discharge their fines and replacement charges from a library.  But for over twenty years, Riebe has been cited as good law, so it is possible that this view of library fines and replacement costs as something more fundamental that a business debt could carry over. 

I emphasize this because it means some types of library fines and costs might be dischargeable, but others, since they are not consumer “debt” in the traditional sense, might not.[3]

So, with all that, let’s get to the nitty-gritty:

Are replacement costs for library materials exempt from or subject to discharge of debt? Overdue fines?

Because of the factors cited above, there can be no one-size-fits all answer to this!  It will depend on a few factors.  Under certain circumstances (replacement costs, fines connected to vandalism or wanton theft) the court might rule that what’s owed to the library is not a “dischargeable” debt.  But that might not be the case for the average family declaring bankruptcy because they got swept at the knees due to illness or job loss, and who might have additional hardships to show to the court.  As with many things in bankruptcy, it will depend on the circumstances.

Fees levied in an attempt to recover materials (i.e. collection agency fees)?

I would argue that imposing additional administrative costs for retaining a collection agent risks transforming the library-patron relationship described so well by Judge Norgle in Riebe.  In doing this, the likelihood of the costs being dischargeable increases.  But again, it will depend on the underlying nature of the fine or cost.  Someone who checked out 10 DVD’s on their first week as a cardholder and never returned them might have a tough time proving that the costs aren’t the result of theft (and thus non-dischargeable).

Are we allowed to impose restrictions on borrowers whose debt has been discharged, if they have not returned materials owned by the library? For example, can we deny loans to a borrower until they return library materials, or pay for them, if the debt has been discharged; or can we limit the number of items loaned for a period of time?

Regardless of where your board may fall on its philosophical approach to fines and collections, any time a cardholder declares bankruptcy, all efforts to collect fines or replacement costs should cease.  Critically, this means if borrowing privileges are only suspended due to unpaid fines, borrowing privileges should immediately be reinstated.  On the flip side, suspension due to unreturned materials (for which no replacement cost is being charged) can continue. 

The most important thing, as the member suggests, is to respect the process when your library is notified of it. Any library, or agent of a library, who gets a notice that a cardholder is filing bankruptcy should cease all financially-related sanctions.  If there are extenuating circumstances (let’s say the amount owed is related to an act of vandalism, or failure to return 50 full-color art books) refer the matter to library’s attorney, or alert the bankruptcy trustee, who might contest discharge under the precise factors of the bankruptcy code.

With all that in mind, I suggest some alternative language for a policy, which would addresses both the human aspect of bankruptcy, and some of these subtleties:

Bankruptcy Discharge Policy

The Library understands that sometimes people must seek relief from debt in bankruptcy and are entitled to a “fresh start” after such relief is obtained.

Procedure

Cardholders seeking a discharge in bankruptcy of moneys owed to the library should notify the library of having filed for bankruptcy.

Once the library is properly notified that a bankruptcy has been filed, the library and/or its agent will immediately cease contacting the cardholder about the financial amount(s) owed. 

The library shall then evaluate its response to the notice.  In making such an evaluation, the nature of the conduct leading to any fines, costs, and suspended privileges will be considered.  In particular, but not exclusively, the discharge of any costs related to wanton destruction or significant failure to return borrowed items may be contested.

After notice of filing, but prior to discharge, if borrowing privileges are suspended solely on the basis of unpaid fines and replacement costs, borrowing privileges will be immediately reinstated; borrowing privileges suspended on the basis of unreturned items, for which no replacement cost is sought, will remain suspended.

To ensure all charges are listed on the bankruptcy schedule, the cardholder or their attorney may contact the library to request a statement of account at any time; such contact must be in writing so there is no risk of the library appearing to have violated the bar on collection activity.  An attorney or trustee requesting this information on behalf of the cardholder must include permission from the cardholder as required by CPLR 4509.

The library supports that people seeking relief in bankruptcy are entitled to a “fresh start” after the discharge of debt(s).  Upon presentation of a “Discharge of Debtor” listing the library, all moneys owing shall be removed from the cardholder’s record, up to the date of discharge, for the cardholder and any minor children in the family. 

Further, if replacement costs are discharged, the library will not regard the failure to return the corresponding item as a basis to bar reinstatement of borrowing privileges.

Late returns or losses after the date of discharge will be subject to routine policies, including fines and suspension of borrowing privileges.

This approach both maximizes the potential for a bankruptcy discharge to be the compassionate re-set of the cardholder’s account it is intended to be…while taking into consideration that not all charges might be worthy of discharge (which is up to the bankruptcy court to decide).

Thank you for this careful question.

 

---

[1] A topic discussed in an interesting TED talk by librarian Dawn Wacek.

[2] United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, October 31, 1997.

[3] The member’s question states that the library is a “government entity,” an assertion that is potentially relevant under the Bankruptcy code.  Without making this response pages longer, I will simply state that I don’t believe a public library has quite the same status governmental entities do under the Bankruptcy Code; however, as shown in Riebe, libraries can occupy a unique position that should inform their approach to this issue.

 

Before we get to the main question (can libraries sell things to raise money?), we must refine something the member mentions in passing.

Yes, under Education Law §260, libraries can dispose of and sell used books—and the library trustees can retain the money.  But since that law actually requires any library[1] disposing of used books to hold such a sale (or to offer the books for free to another not-for-profit or government agency in their area), such revenue generation is more an obligation than a fiscal liberty.  In other words: the board can sell the books and keep the money…but the power comes with strings. 

As it happens, that is the theme of this entire answer!

So, is it “illegal” for a library to sell things and retain the money?  No, it’s not, but it is complicated, and the complications warrant extreme caution before undertaking such a venture.

Let’s discuss this authority and its complexities.

The ability to sell library assets and retain the revenue is rooted in the statutory authority of library trustees. 

As stated in Education Law §260:  “Public libraries…shall be managed by trustees who shall have all the powers of trustees of other educational institutions [created by the Regents].” [2]

These “powers,” with some modifications, track the powers of boards created by New York’s Not-for-Profit Corporation Law.  Two of those powers are:

1) the acquisition and sale of real property (land, buildings, easements); and

2) the acquisition and sale of personal property (books, cars, artworks).

For libraries, these powers come with a well-recognized financial autonomy.  As the New York State Comptroller puts it:

With respect to library moneys…we note that public libraries are, for most purposes, fiscally autonomous from the sponsoring municipality (see, e.g., 1983 Opns St Comp No. 83-32, p 38). Thus, the ultimate control of the use, disposition, and expenditure of those moneys is vested in the library board of trustees even if the municipal treasurer is the custodian of library moneys. (Education Law, §§226[6], 259[1]; 1987 Opns St Comp No. 87-84, p 125; see also Opn No. 87-49, supra; Opn No. 86-54, supra). (1993 Op St Compt File #93-15)

The practical effect of this autonomy has led the Comptroller to conclude (in two separate opinions):

The trustees of a city public library may sell two bookmobiles belonging to the library at either a public or private sale and may use the proceeds of such sale in such manner as they shall deem to be in the best interests of the library. (1983 Op St Compt File #83-9) [emphasis added].

It would seem that a library board of trustees may sell an unneeded library building, title to which is properly vested in the library board, without voter approval. (1980 Op St Compt File #125)[3] [emphasis added].

So selling items—and retaining the resulting revenue—is part of a library board’s acknowledged authority. 

Of course, this authority is not unchecked. [4] As the Comptroller noted in a 1995 Opinion, the fiscal autonomy of a public library is accompanied by a requirement for absolute transparency:

…General Municipal Law, §30(3) requires that an annual report of financial transactions, including those involving private source moneys (Opn No. 88-76, supra), be made by the treasurer of each public library. The report must be certified by the officer making the same and, unless an extension of time is granted, must be filed with the Office of the State Comptroller within 60 days after the close of the library's fiscal year (General Municipal Law, §30[5]). In addition, the Education Law contains certain requirements for public libraries to report to the State Education Department (see Education Law, §§215, 263). Finally, as noted in Opn No. 88-76, supra, the town board, in determining the amount to be raised by taxes for library purposes, may take into account a library's private source funds and, therefore, may request from the library information concerning such funds. (1995 Op St Compt File #95-30)

In other words: the revenue raised by a sale can be retained, but must be spent in a manner consistent with the library’s plan of service, must adhere to relevant procurement and accounting procedures, and must be properly reported.

And there are more “strings:”

First, even when allowable, not all revenue generated by a not-for-profit entity is entitled to be free of tax.  “Unrelated business income tax” (“UBIT”) is risked when commerce unrelated to the mission of a not-for-profit generates revenue.  This is by no means a bar to a not-for-profit generating some revenue, but is a potential accounting burden, mission distraction, and cost.

Second, but perhaps most important, a library should never accustom the public to the notion of libraries independently and routinely generating revenue. 

Operational funding is the function of a library’s supporting territory and the state.  The public should never get the impression that libraries self-fund; libraries are by law a free resource serving their public, and should be funded. 

And as emphasized in Comptroller Opinion #95-30, above, a funding entity can consider library-generated revenue and donations when it’s time to levy taxes.  Translation: generate revenue at your own risk.

So: yes, the boards of public, school district, special legislative district, and association libraries have the power to sell things and retain the revenue, but if they do, each in its own way should be very careful to:

• Follow its own charter and unique rules;
• Follow all applicable laws and regulations, and know it will need to externally report the sale and use of the money;
• Never create the impression of charging its members for services;
• Not engage in activity that would create “UBIT” (unrelated business income tax), without specific advice from legal and tax professionals;
• Conduct itself with fiscal transparency; and
• Not make any revenue-generating activity a function that could risk the reduction of public funding. 

For a board seeking financial flexibility and responsiveness, these “strings” can be very limiting.   This is where budgeting should help out. 

Rather than conducting their own fund-raising, all boards should explore designating a small part of the library’s budget for board-identified needs (what the member calls “the board’s needs”), so long as those needs are consistent with the library’s plan of service and overall best interests, and the spending is appropriately documented and approved. 

For instance, a board can budget for a strategic planning retreat, an emergency fund, an external consultant, or a unique event for the library.  A library investment fund’s annual revenue can be reserved for a particular use.  The board just has to bear in mind that all these actions will be reported in their publicly disclosed library budget, and so must be easily perceived as mission-related, prudent, and proper.

This why library budgeting is both an art, and a science.[5]

Now, to the final part of the member’s question.  These issues of compliance, transparency, flexibility, and propriety are the very reasons why public libraries have “Friends” (not-for-profit corporations with missions to support a library).  

Every library board of Trustees should feel they can look to their “Friends,” for mission-aligned support.  In an ideal world, the board-approved library budget handles all operational needs, while the Friends’ budget helps out with added layers of special events, acquisitions, and programs.  And when planning for capital acquisitions and improvements, it’s a strategic all-hands-on-deck.

Of course, we don’t live in an ideal world; the operations of two separate not-for-profit entities can be tough to coordinate and align.  With that in mind, I encourage every library board to review the “Friends” section in most recent NYLA “Handbook for Library Trustees in New York State.”  This invaluable resource sets out solid tactics for cultivating and reaping the benefits of a Library/Friends relationship (something it’s easy to write about, but often hard to do).

Thank you for your question.

Depression.  Burn-out. Dissatisfaction. Lack of connection.  Lack of money. Lack of parking.

These are just some of the reasons students give when they choose to leave—or are forced to leave—their college or university before graduating. 

Many times, these reasons snuck up on them, although in hindsight, they could be seen: a pattern of missing classes, a downward trend in grades, maybe even dropping out of clubs and other campus activities.  And almost always, after a student leaves (often in tears) faculty and staff, coaches and friends, are left wondering: could they have done more[1]?

No matter what events led up to it, for each such incident of student “attrition,” the stakes are high: student loans, a sense of failure, the end of a career dream, and perhaps even a medical condition that went untreated while the student struggled on their own.

But what if the clues could be seen earlier?  What if the downward spiral could be stopped?

Fueled by increasing technological capabilities, many institutions of higher education are developing cross-campus, inter-sector systems to do just that: hoping to correlate the warning signs and fight student attrition through early intervention.  Using a variety of commercially available and home-programmed tech, they are tracking everything from dining hall meals, to class attendance, to visits to the gym.  These factors, as well as comments from concerned faculty or staff, are then routinely assessed and cross-checked for red flags. 

Because libraries are increasingly hosting classes and providing adjunct space for group work, it makes sense that such a system would consider tracking library usage.  After all, it can be a good sign that a student is just getting out of their dorm room!

But there is a tension within this well-meaning system.  College is where young adults journey to find their independence and privacy; promoting this maturation is part of a college or university’s purpose. Further, a net of privacy laws constrains the easy sharing of certain types of information.  But knowing the painful consequences of unchecked student struggles, many institutions work hard to find the right blend of metrics and policies to be able to intervene. 

Part of this hard work is finding the right path through that net of privacy laws.  As the member writes, the biggest privacy law of all, FERPA,[2] does allow such inter-departmental sharing,[3] and even parental notification about safety concerns, when the time is right.  It does this through both application of the law, and “FERPA waivers.”

But in New York, FERPA is not the only privacy rule to apply[4] to these information-sharing systems.  As the member states, New York’s Civil Practice Laws and Rules (the “CPLR”) §4509 (“4509”) also governs a student’s records—at least, their library records.  And it sets the bar high.

4509 is a short law where every word matters, so it is worth quoting in full here: 

Library records, which contain names or other personally identifying details regarding the users of public, free association, school, college and university libraries and library systems of this state, including but not limited to records related to the circulation of library materials, computer database searches, interlibrary loan transactions, reference queries, requests for photocopies of library materials, title reserve requests, or the use of audio-visual materials, films or records, shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed except that such records may be disclosed to the extent necessary for the proper operation of such library and shall be disclosed upon request or consent of the user or pursuant to subpoena, court order or where otherwise required by statute. [emphasis added]

As you can see, “college and university libraries,” even though they are part of larger institutions, are clearly covered by this law.

So how does 4509 impact the member’s question?

First, every library (academic or not) should have a clear sense of what it regards as “library records.”  As can be seen in the statute, the term is not precisely defined (“including but not limited to” leaves a lot of room for argument!).  Some of the obvious ones are listed in the law (circulation records, database searches, copy requests) but unnamed others could be just as vital to privacy (use of a 3-D printer, security footage covering the circulation desk, and in the member’s example, the use of research appointments).   And still others activities that use the library may or may not apply (classes conducted in the library, but not part of library programming, are arguably excludable).

To protect the records as required by law, a library must know precisely what records it must protect.  This is why, just like a public or association library, a college or university library should have a “Privacy of Library Records” policy clearly showing where it draws the line. Such a policy should also have a “subpoena response protocol,” so the library can train staff on how to receive internal and external third-party demands for information. 

And in a perfect world, this college or university “Privacy of Library Records Policy” should be known and supported by the institutional officer who oversees the library (a Provost or Academic VP).  This officer’s authority, from time to time, may be needed to ensure the policy is respected by campus safety officers, student disciplinary administration, and any other department that might want library records in service of another institutional purpose.  Librarians should not hold the 4509 lines alone!

Now, back to the member’s scenario.  Once a library knows precisely where it “draws the line” on library records, the member’s instinct is right: any access to information that falls within the institution’s definition of “library records” should be either denied, or allowed only as the law requires: via a signed consent from the user/student.

I know, just what every student wants—to fill out another form!  But these 4509 consents, just like a “FERPA Waiver,” are not only mechanisms to ensure legal compliance, they are a chance to educate students about their right to privacy. 

For instance, the consent form (I imagine it would be a digital click-through on a password-protected student account, but it could be a paper form) could say:

“The privacy of library records is protected by the law in New York State (CPLR 4509).  Your enrollment in the [SYSTEM NAME] will ask the library to disclose certain library records that are protected by this law.  As a library user at an library in New York, you have the right to keep your library records private.  A list of what [LIBRARY NAME] considers to be library records is here [link to policy].  If you would like to consent to the [NAME OF LIBRARY] sharing your library records with only [SYSTEM], please check the below consent:

[ ] I am at least 18 years of age, and consent to the limited sharing of my library records for purposes of sharing the information with the [SCHOOL NAME] [SYSTEM].  This consent does not allow sharing my library records, even within the school, for any other purpose.  No consent to share the records with external entities is give. 

I understand I will need to renew this consent every fall semester, and that I may revoke this consent at any time.

Of course, there is no legal requirement for annual renewal, but it is worth considering.  A year is a long time in the life of the typical undergraduate student, who may enter college with one set of civil rights values, and leave with another. With an annual renewal, the library not only complies with the law, but educates the student about their privacy rights on an annual basis.

So, to address the member’s final questions:

Have we crossed any lines here?

No.  By thinking about this issue during the planning phase of the system, you are making sure the lines are bright and well-defined.

Do we even need the opt-in statement?

You could call it that, but I recommend calling it a “4509 Consent.”  That would build awareness of this important law in our future leaders (and librarians).  Of course, as a lawyer, I may be biased as to how important that is (but it’s really important!).

Is this something clear or fuzzy/grey?

Not so long as your library has a clear and routinely evaluated policy defining what it regards as “library records.”  This can be tough at an integrated institution, where so much information technology crosses through different sectors.  But it should be done.

What should we be considering that we haven't thought of?  

I think you should consider buying yourself a nice cup of coffee or tea for doing your part to support a commitment to personal privacy in the United States of America and State of New York.  Unlike in the European Union, our privacy currently risks death by a thousand cuts.  Every bit of armor counts. 

Thanks.

And thank you.

 

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.