Emergency Response

Since the onset of pandemic restrictions, "Ask the Lawyer" has written a lot on different variations of this topic.[1]

Since I am tired of being the party pooper on this issue,[2] I am offering up something new.  Here it is:

Don't do it...unless you make it something new.

What do I mean by "something new"?  I mean a use that is so clever, so additive, that even though it uses a copyright-protected work, it creates a work with independent meaning.

Examples of this "something new" are:

• Extensive[3] "color commentary" combined with the reading.
• Replacing the characters in the books with people in your town to make a witty commentary about town life.[4]
• Combining the reading with a special talent, such as reading each sentence of a travel book while traveling to a different yoga position, or reading a baking scene in a book while making a cake. 
• Humorous juxtaposition, like reading the first scene of Moby Dick[5] while fishing, or reading a book about puppies to your cat.[6]

Despite all the wishful writing out there, the cloud of the pandemic did not bring us the silver lining of automatic expansion of fair use.  That said, it hasn't diminished fair use.  So, if your library:

• Isn't using the event as a fund-raiser;
• Is using the event to educate and engage the public;
• Requires readers to not use the entire work; and
• Requires a transformative use, like the examples given above...

...[7] there is a strong chance your event can go on as (virtually) planned. [8]

Good luck and happy reading!

[1] See Audiobooks and Copyright Laws in a Pandemic, Phone recordings of stories and copyright, Comments on Fair Use During COVID-19 and Online Library Programming (Any Type of Program).

[2] The answer is "Don't do it, unless you have permission or the work is in the public domain."

[3] "Extensive" means incisive comments at least every paragraph.

[4] Since I don't want to help you avoid a copyright claim only to wind up with a defamation law suit, if you do this, avoid using books that take deep and honest looks at human nature (No William Faulkner, no Maya Angelou, and certainly no Zadie Smith).  Use sunny books that make the best of things!

[5] This is a bad example because Moby Dick is in the public domain.  Which reminds me: you can also try using books in the public domain (published before 1924).

[6] Puppies and a cat?! 50% chance to go viral on day 1. 

[7] Which just happen to line up with the four factors of fair use.

[8] Just in case this suggestion appeals to readers, here is some suggested event recruitment text, based on the member's question:

It's time for our annual 24 hour read-aloud!  Usually, we have people camped on the front lawn but due to our work this year to keep everyone healthy, we can't hold this event in person.  Instead, we will do it virtually.

Here are the details for this year's readers: instead of reading an entire book, please work with us to film you reading from the first chapter from one of your favorite books, along with comments or a special related activity by you!  The final product will help us celebrate reading AND the personalities in our town.  Be as creative as you like, but the added content has to be related somehow to the book.

It is not wrong to require patrons to wear masks.  As of this writing (July 7, 2020), qualified experts agree that masks remain one of the most effective ways to stop the transmission of COVID-19.[1]  In an environment storing circulating materials[2] and shared space, this is a critical step for reducing the risk to library employees, and the public.

That said, even the most well-intentioned efforts can step on the rights of others, including rights under the ADA.  How does a library promote safety, while abiding by the ADA?

The key is to implement and enforce the mask-wearing requirement in a way that doesn’t overstep or unnecessarily limit the access of those living with a disability.[3]

Here is a step-by-step process to help a library assess, draft and enforce a mask-wearing requirement so it is harmonized with the protections of the ADA.

NOTE: For this exercise you will need: a copy of your Safety Plan, the person or team who writes/updates the Safety Plan, a copy of your library’s floorplan, and the documents linked in the steps below. 

Estimated time of activity: 1.5 hours.

Step 1

Isolate the language in your Safety Plan requiring patrons to wearing masks. This is your “Patron Mask Enforcement Language” (“PMEL”).[4]

Step 2

Look at your PMEL. 

Is it a Uniform Use requirement, such as: “All patrons must wear masks upon entry, and the mask must remain in place at all times during your visit, in all areas.”

Or

Is it a Circumstantial Use requirement, such as: “All patrons must wear masks upon entry, and the mask must remain in place at all times during your visit, except when seated in our Wipe Down Reading Area,[5] where seating is at least 7 feet apart, and patrons must spray down the surfaces in their zone after use (limit 20 minutes).”

Step 3

Look at the floor plan.  Is there ANY place in the library where current CDC-advised safety practices can be used to create a place for “Circumstantial Use” of masks?  In other words, is there any place where, after considering all the risks to mitigate through measures other than a mask, can you offer an official mask-free zone to patrons?

For many small libraries, the answer will be a hard “NO.” The space will be just too small.  And for many libraries with more space, the answer will again be a hard “NO,” based on budget; they may have the space, but the extra resources spent to monitor and sanitize the area are just too costly.

When the Safety Plan team reaches a conclusion, document the analysis, and if any zone can be so converted, mark it on the floor plan (which you will attached to the Safety Plan).  For example: The Safety Plan Team met on DATE to review the floor plan and see if any area could be converted into a mask-free zone for patrons.  Based on space, available furniture, costs, and proximity to circulating materials, the team concluded [whatever you concluded].

Step 4

If your library does develop a mask-free zone for patrons, the rules and cleaning protocols for the area must be robustly detailed in your Safety Plan.  The supplies for patrons to do their own spray-down upon arising from the designated seating must be routinely re-stocked.  The rules must be well-posted and strictly enforced. 

Step 5

Now, back to the ADA.  Does your Safety Plan have a section on how a patron can request accommodations while the library is operating under the Plan?  If the answer is “no”, this is a good thing to consider adding.

Why?

I have written previously about libraries’ shifting obligations under the ADA.[6]  All of that previous material applies to this situation, but of course, now we have the extra layer of COVID-19. 

Always, with ADA, the goal of the library should be to find a way to ensure access.  That said, some access will not be as a patron envisions, and some requested accommodations are just not implementable.  Because of this, as I wrote at the top of this answer: “The key is to implement and enforce the mask-wearing requirement in a way that doesn’t overstep or unnecessarily limit the access of those living with a disability.”  When modifying operations to reduce transmission of COVID-19, that means posting information about accommodations and access right along with the other signage you’re developing and posting as part of the Safety Plan.

So with all that as background, “Step 5” is answering this question:

“Does our Safety Plan address access and accommodations as required[7] by the ADA?”  If the answer is “no,” continue to Step 6.

Step 6

If you have decided you must add some ADA-related language to your Safety Plan, you can do so by answering the following questions:

a.  How does a person contact the library to request reasonable accommodations during a time of adjusted operations?

b.  What reasonable accommodations can your library be ready to offer to the following common safety measure-related issues:

• inability to wear a mask
• allergy to hand sanitizer
• chemical sensitivity (triggered by increased use of cleaning products)
• requested assistance requires library employee to get closer than six feet (for instance, help with using computer)
• patron is especially vulnerable to COVID-19 due to other risk factors

Some of the requested accommodations for the above issues will be simple.  Can’t use hand sanitizer?  We’ll provide water, a disposable towel, and soap.  Can’t wear a mask?  We don’t have a mask-free zone, but we’ll be happy to assist you over the phone and you can pick your books up curbside.  Need extra help at the computer?  We’ll figure it out, but our employees have been instructed to stay at least six feet apart unless behind a plexi window, and that is non-negotiable.

Some accommodations are harder.  You’re allergic to the spray-down solution we bought in bulk?  Sorry, we can’t buy a different gross of spray until next month; please let us know what ingredient bothers you and we’ll see if our procurement folks can find something different. Until then, we’ll be happy to assist you over the phone and you can pick your books up curbside.  You have pre-existing conditions that mean you can’t go in a public area, even if there is a Safety Plan being enforced?  We are so sorry to hear that. We miss you.  We wish this whole thing was over.  We are here for you by phone, e-mail, or the internet, and can work with a designated person who will pick up your books.

The key is to ensure that people know how to direct the requests, and that the library is ready to assess them promptly. 

A good way to organize this is to create a section of the Safety Plan providing for signage stating: “For patrons needing disability accommodations while the library is operating under conditions to reduce the transmission of COVID-19, please call NAME at NUMBER, or write to EMAIL or ADDRESS.  You will also find this information in our Safety Plan.  The library is committed to safe access for all.”

Step 7: Feeling Confident

Okay, you have followed the six steps for assessing your Safety Plan and building out its provisions with regard to ADA.  Do you feel confident in your approach?[8]  For teams that want a little extra “oomph” in their handling of COVID-19-related accommodations requests, here is some law:

First, here is the language from New York’s Executive Order 202.34, regarding the ability of businesses to require and enforce the use of masks:

Business operators and building owners, and those authorized on their behalf shall have the discretion to ensure compliance with the directive in Executive Order 202.17 (requiring any individual over age two, and able to medically tolerate a face-covering, be required to cover their nose and mouth with a mask or cloth face-covering when in a public place), including the discretion to deny admittance to individuals who fail to comply with the directive in Executive Order 202.17 or to require or compel their removal if they fail to adhere to such directive, and such owner or operator shall not be subject to a claim of violation of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, or frustration of purpose, solely due to their enforcement of such directive. Nothing in this directive shall prohibit or limit the right of State and local enforcement authorities from imposing fines or other penalties for any violation of the directive in Executive Order 202.17.  This directive shall be applied in a manner consistent with the American with Disabilities Act or any provision of either New York State or New York City Human Rights Law, or any other provision of law.

As reviewed in Step 6, “consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act,” does not mean that those who cannot medically wear a mask are automatically allowed maskless entry as an ADA accommodation.  Rather, a place must see if the risk posed to the public by the maskless individual can be mitigated by a “reasonable” accommodation.  For libraries that can have a mask-free zone, they can be.  For a tiny library where any breath will land on circulating materials, it likely cannot. 

The key to doing this right is thoughtful assessment and documentation: replying to ADA requests should not be a gut-check exercise.  It should be considered, thoughtful, and documented as shown in steps 3 through 6.  Whenever possible, a library assessing accommodations request should consult a lawyer.

Second, here is a pep talk from the US Department of Justice, the body who enforces ADA:

The Department of Justice Warns of Inaccurate Flyers and Postings Regarding the Use of Face Masks and the Americans with Disabilities Act

Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Eric Dreiband reiterated today that cards and other documents bearing the Department of Justice seal and claiming that individuals are exempt from face mask requirements are fraudulent.

Inaccurate flyers or other postings have been circulating on the web and via social media channels regarding the use of face masks and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Many of these notices included use of the Department of Justice seal and ADA phone number.

As the Department has stated in a previous alert, the Department did not issue and does not endorse them in any way. The public should not rely on the information contained in these postings.

The ADA does not provide a blanket exemption to people with disabilities from complying with legitimate safety requirements necessary for safe operations.
The public can visit ADA.gov or call the ADA Information Line at 800-514-0301 (voice) and 800-514-0383 (TTY) for more information.

[emphasis added]

So, while ADA, or the disability protections of the New York Human Rights law, most certainly could apply to a person denied access to a covered institution, as can be seen, it’s just not that simple.  If your library builds out the ADA provisions of its safety plan, listens to ADA-related requests carefully, and assesses them promptly, you can feel confident that you are doing your best to provide ADA access.  And if you have the slightest uncertainty about any of those steps, you should contact a lawyer.

However, having seen how these things go, here is a final thought: people who are making ADA requests can feel vulnerable.  It can be scary to admit a disability; it is an act of trust to request accommodations.  On the flip side, many people with disabilities have learned their rights, and fight for them as warriors.  Many parents of children with disabilities have learned to be ardent advocates. 

All of this can create tension (at any already tense time).  So any ADA request, no matter what the tone or context, should be met with a simple “I hear this request.  We will work on this as quickly as possible.  This is important to us.”  Then get the answer, and document it, taking care to not let too much time pass.

Thank you for an important question.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html#evidence-effectiveness

[2] https://www.webjunction.org/content/dam/WebJunction/Documents/webJunction/realm/systematic-lit-review.pdf

[3] https://askjan.org/a-to-z.cfm

[4] I really tried to come up with a sassy acronym for this.  The best I could do, even after 2 cups of coffee, was “MAP” for “Masking All Patrons.”  That sounds AWFUL so “PMEL” it is.

[5] I won’t lie.  I didn’t try to come up with a better phrase than “Wipe Down Reading Area.”  But I am sure someone out there will.

[6]  ADA Compliance When Screening Movies Yes, this is one of the documents to have in the work packet.

[7] Bearing in mind that different libraries will have different requirements.

[8] NOTE: While this Executive Order does not mention the other requirements a business can make a condition of entry, since a library can make adherence to its Safety Plan a condition of the standing Patron Code of Conduct, if a library so chooses, it has more than just the Order to address concerns (this also assures all appropriate due process).  See Mask and PPE Library Policies for a discussion of how to enfold your Safety Plan into your Code of Conduct.

I appreciate this question, because it gives me a chance to make an important clarification:

As they prepare to re-open and re-welcome the public for summer 2020, libraries and other chartered entities DO NOT need “disclaimers”[1] to combat alleged responsibility for employee and patron cases of COVID-19. Instead, they need:

• a WRITTEN SAFETY PLAN (customized to their own operations);
• SIGNAGE and other documentation to enforce the Plan; and
• Clear and consistent ENFORCEMENT.

Why is that?  Because limiting liability for the transmission of disease is not the same as limiting liability for riding a roller coaster.

Liability based on infection/illness is based on either 1) the intentional act of deliberately spreading infection (for instance, someone with COVID-19 deliberately spitting on someone); or 2) the negligent act of not doing what you were reasonably supposed to do, and thus causing a heightened risk of harm (for instance, someone mistakenly using the wrong product to clean a high-traffic surface).

When it comes to a person allegedly getting COVID at a library, no disclaimer will reduce liability for either type of action. What is needed, instead, is to show that the library has taken all reasonable steps to protect the safety of employees and the public.  That is the key to limiting liability.

This can only be done via a Safety Plan based on guidance from NYSDOH, OSHA and the CDC.   Since a Plan is only good if the planners follow it, signage[2] promoting adherence to the Plan, through consistent and well-documented enforcement, is also critical.

I am emphasizing a written Safety Plan not only because the State is requiring them, but because in New York, disclaimers, waivers, and “At Your Own Risk” notices are only effective under precise circumstances. 

For instance, an insurance carrier can refuse coverage based on a properly worded disclaimer.  A sky-diving company can avoid liability for a customer’s heart attack with a waiver.  But the insurance disclaimer still won’t void the liability of the insured, and the waiver won’t work if the damage is caused by a sky-diving instructor’s willful action.   The enforceability of such documents depends on the circumstances.

What DOES guard against liability for transmission of disease is showing that a library 1) identified appropriate safety practices confirmed by a recognized authority; 2) uniformly and consistently enforced those practices.  In that approach, signage alerting people to the risk of transmission (and requiring adherence to rules to minimize it), is part of that “uniform and consistent” enforcement.

Which brings me to the hard truth I have to emphasize:

If your library can’t 1) identify appropriate safety practices confirmed by a recognized authority as reducing transmission of COVID-19; and can’t 2) uniformly and consistently enforce those practices, your library should not operate.  No waiver or legal document will protect it if basic safety practices are not identified and enforced.

Now, all that said, as part of its “consistent and uniform enforcement” of safety practices, a library could decide to ask each patron to review and sign a document like this:

The ABC library is now open for [insert limited services].  To ensure consistent use of appropriate safety practices, please review and agree to the following practices before entering, which will apply until the board determines otherwise:

I agree to wear a mask at all times in the library; if I am medically unable to wear a mask, I will call the library at [##########] to arrange reasonable accommodations.

I will sanitize my hands prior to entry at the station provided by the library.

I will avoid touching my face and mask while in the library's premises.

I will abide by any other safety-related requests by library staff.

I will [insert your library’s specific requirements, as stated in the Safety Plan].

I understand that these practices are currently the rules of the library and they are being enforced both for my safety and that of the public as currently advised by the Center for Disease Control.

Signed: ________________________

This type of signed “acknowledgement” is one way to show that people have been notified that these are unusual times in the library, and that entering the premises may bring more than the usual risk.  That said, this approach is not an “acceptance of risk” document, disclaimer, or liability waiver.  For the reasons stated above, those approaches really aren’t what’s needed for the simple resumption of library activity.  What is needed is a Safety Plan.

Of course, if your library decides that aside from resuming some modified operations, it would like to host some inherently hazardous activities (riding a mechanical bull,[3] digging a community garden with heavy equipment, printing Jarts on the 3-D printer) a waiver is a good idea.  But for resumption of activities while the country is still fighting COVID-19, your Safety Plan is the key.

Thanks for a great question.

[1] In New York, a “disclaimer” is a formal written document or policy clause used by an insurance company to deny coverage for liability.  As an example, see §3420 of the New York Insurance Law.

[2] By “signage,” I mean any documentation in the library, or on the Internet, that encourages Safety Plan compliance.

[3] I had to draft a waiver for a mechanical bull once.  Sometimes being a lawyer is fun!

The short answer

This answer is being written on May 28th, 2020.

At this time, in addition to Executive Order 202 issued on March 7, 2020 and declaring a state of emergency in New York through September 7th, 2020, there are 30 Executive Orders.

These Executive Orders create temporary modifications to a wide and ever-increasing array of state law and regulations. They have impacted elections, public health practices, landlord tenant relations, and countless operations of the New York State justice system.

However, as of this date, there has been no modification of section 4509 of the state Civil Procedure Law and Rules (“CPLR”), which, with only very limited exceptions, bars third-party access to a user’s library records.

Therefore, at this time, any library receiving a request from a third party for confidential library records, even if in relation to contract tracing efforts, should follow the same procedure they do for all other third-party requests: require a subpoena or judicial order.

The same answer, but with more information and analysis

I am grateful to the member for posing this question, because not only is it important to have clarity on this precise issue, it is important for information management professionals across the state of New York, including some of New York's most trusted information professionals — librarians — to be thinking about the impact and finer points of contact tracing.

So what is “contact tracing”?

The Centers for Disease Control describes contract tracing this way on their current COVID-19 response page[1]:

“In contact tracing, public health staff work with a patient to help them recall everyone with whom they have had close contact during the timeframe while they may have been infectious.  Public health staff then warn these exposed individuals (contacts) of their potential exposure as rapidly and sensitively as possible.”

After declaring COVID-19 a “communicable disease” as defined by the state’s Public Health Law, New York began using contact tracing to combat COVID-19.[2]  Local health departments led the way, organizing information and coordinating warnings within their jurisdiction, an initiative that inspired the previous question referenced by the member.

With the adoption of “New York Forward,” 30 contact tracers for every 100,000 residents is one of the express metrics[3] being used to establish when one of the state’s ten regions is ready to begin a phased reopening.  So, every region will be recruiting and deploying “tracers” to gather information and issue warnings to individuals who testing has confirmed have been exposed to COVID-19.

While emphasizing that such warnings must be issued “rapidly,” the CDC’s guidelines for contact tracing also emphasize privacy:

“To protect patient privacy, contacts are only informed that they may have been exposed to a patient with the infection. They are not told the identity of the patient who may have exposed them.”

The State of New York, however, does not require this level of confidentiality in its laws regarding quarantine, notification of infection, and contact tracing related to most communicable diseases.  While the precise regulations governing the use of contact tracing to fight the spread of HIV require the consent of the patient, the regulations applying to COVID-19 do not have similar requirements.[4] Nor is such information regarded as protected health information (“PHI”) under HIPAA.

I am highlighting these considerations not to denigrate contact tracing, which has been documented as effective in combating pandemics. However, as of this writing, as reported by The New York Times, many in authority, or with credibility in the arenas of privacy and data security, have expressed serious concerns regarding the procurement and arrangement of the software and personnel that will be used in this massive public health initiative.

Caution about privacy, even during times of emergency, is a good thing.

With all that, the collaborative, community health-focused approach I outlined on March 19, 2020, in [2020 Pandemic Date Specific] Contact tracing and privacy in libraries is one I continue to endorse.

In addition to that approach, here is a suggested reply in the event your library is contacted by a state-employed contact tracer, designed to work with your standard protocol for complying with 4509:

[After verifying credentials]

We know your work is critical to public health.  Please send us a written list of what you need, and we will work to obtain consent from our users, as required by CPLR 4509.  In the alternative, please ensure what you need is very thoroughly set forth in a duly issued subpoena or judicial order.  Our library will work to expedite your request as soon as we know we are authorized to do so.

One final point

After conducting the research set forth in this answer, it is my opinion that CPLR 4509’s assurance of the confidentiality of library records is not at odds with the current emergency measures our state is taking to protect lives and get our world back on track. 

First, it is critical to remember that under 4509, a person may give their written consent to disclosure.  Many people, upon learning they might pose a danger, will give their express and voluntary consent, if they have the capacity at the time.  That is their right, and there is no concern with your library contacting them to ask the question.

Second, if the need for confidential library records is truly critical, local board of health officials—and the tracers who will be helping their localities—can invoke the authority created by the public health law[5] to obtain duly authorized subpoenas. 

Unlike many other laws and regulations, CPLR 4509 can remain as written, while New York undertakes an unprecedented, massive effort to conduct contact tracing, and protect public health.  

Thank you for an important question.

[1] Found on May 28, 2020 at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/principles-contact-tracing.html.

[2] Since reporting new or unusual communicable diseases is also required, cases were probably also reported before March 7.

[3] These metrics are laid out in a graph found at https://www.governor.ny.gov/programs/new-york-forward.

[4] That section is 10 NYCRR 2.10, which states: “It shall be the duty of every physician to report to the city, county or district health officer, within whose jurisdiction such patient resides, the full name, age and address of every person with a suspected or confirmed case of a communicable disease, any outbreak of communicable disease, any unusual disease or unusual disease outbreak and as otherwise authorized in section 2.1 of this Part, together with the name of the disease if known, and any additional information requested by the health officer in the course of an investigation pursuant to this Part, within 24 hours from the time the case is first seen by him, and such report shall be by telephone, facsimile transmission or other electronic communication if indicated, and shall also be made in writing, except that the written notice may be omitted with the approval of the State Commissioner of Health.”

[5] New York Public Health Law, Section 309.

Not only can the students play, record, and stream “Pomp & Circumstance,” but they can also create an original musical based on it, rap over it, score an original movie with it, and in short: do anything they want with it.[1]

While anyone graduating in 2020 deserves this kind of red-carpet legal treatment, not only can the students do it, but everyone else can, too.  That is the beauty of a work being in “the public domain.”[2]

Thanks, and may all your virtual ceremonies be joyous.

[1] That said, any publisher that has created and distributed its own version of “Pomp and Circumstance” with a specific arrangement, illustrations, instructions, etc. may own the copyright to that particular text, and it shouldn’t be duplicated via hard copy or scanning.  In a similar vein, any publisher that has issued a specific recording may own the rights to that specific recording, and that should not be streamed or used without permission, either.  But the composition of “Pomp and Circumstance” is in the public domain, so generating a student-created version of it is fine, and if the district is the one recording it, they (and the performers) own the copyright (see Copyright Office Circular 56)!

[2] “In the public domain” means “no longer protected by copyright.”  Edward Elgar, composer of “Pomp & Circumstance,” died in 1934, so even under the most rigorous scheme of ownership, the copyright to P&C has expired.

Life is full of surprises.  When I was in third grade, I was surprised to learn that this strange country called “Canada” occupied the upper half of North America.  When I was in fifteen, I was surprised to learn that “brooch” rhymes with “roach.”[1]  And upon researching the answer to this question, I was surprised to learn that Zoom doesn’t have an “exclusive use” clause in their service agreement.[2]

Now, let me be clear, the Zoom “Terms of Use,” most certainly bar simply enabling a “third” party to use a library’s account.  Here is the clause that does that:

You may not offer or enable any third parties to use the Services purchased by You, display on any website or otherwise publish the Services or any Content obtained from a Service (other than Content created by You) or otherwise generate income from the Services or use the Services for the development, production or marketing of a service or product substantially similar to the Services.

In other words, Zoom doesn’t want you to “offer” your account out to another party (even if that party is a legit not-for-profit). 

But the member has asked if they can serve as the “host” of the meeting, mirroring the way their library opens its doors for certain groups and gatherings.  Both functionally and grammatically—and thus legally—this means the library is the one using the service.  It’s like my law firm using our Zoom to host a board meeting for a client, since I need to be there anyway.  Or, perhaps more closely, an educational institution letting a student group use its Zoom, so the student newspaper can soldier on. 

So the stark, simple answer to the member’s question (“Is the library legally allowed to use the library's Zoom subscription to host meetings for these groups as an Outreach Program?”) is “YES.”

That said, being a detail-oriented, pro-risk-management, and liability-averse kind of attorney, I can’t just leave it there.

Physical meetings at your library all must follow some rules.  Some libraries set these rules by policy, others confirm them with both a written policy and a facility use contract. 

These documents ensure that the particular rules at that library will be followed.[3] The same should apply when the library is hosting a Zoom meeting for your community. 

In addition, since the Zoom “Terms of Use”[4] and related agreements impose certain rules, and hold the licensee (your library) responsible for any violations, the conditions for library-hosted meetings should not only require adherence to your rules, but also to Zoom’s.

Zoom’s “Acceptable Use” Policy expressly bars numerous types of activity, including but not limited to:

• Promoting violence.
• Harming children.
• Displays of nudity, violence, pornography, sexually explicit material, or criminal activity.
• Human trafficking.
• Supporting or facilitating terrorism or terrorist organizations
• Any activity that is defamatory, harassing, threatening or abusive.[5]
• Copyright infringement.

I imagine most libraries can endorse these conditions, but some may be (rightly) wary to impose content restrictions on meetings.  While the limits your library has agreed to with Zoom is a contract the library has voluntarily accepted, I can see a (very) few instances where perhaps a first amendment concern could loom.  So any library considering hosting Zoom meetings for users should think that aspect through thoroughly, and be ready to address it just as you address such concerns for physical meetings.

To help a library navigate these straightforward but choppy legal waters—especially the Zoom Terms’ bar on letting a third party use your account—here is a template “Virtual Meeting” Agreement. 

NOTE: As always, template agreements should be reviewed by your library’s legal counsel to ensure they conform with your library’s charter, bylaws, unique identity, and other policies.

Videoconference Meeting Agreement—TEMPLATE ONLY

On the above date and time, the [NAME] library will host a meeting of the above-listed group for the above listed purpose.

It is understood that every attendee of the meaning will be expected to abide by both all the applicable rules of the library for meetings at our facility, and to observe any and all above-listed additional conditions. 

The above-listed “Meeting Facilitator” should be logged in to the meeting at least 10 minutes before so they can discuss the orderly conduct of the meeting with Library Staff. 

The Meeting Facilitator must discuss the functional aspects of the meeting with library staff before the start of the meeting; they should be prepared to discuss how attendees will be able to interact and how the relevant functions of the meeting will be used to meet the meeting's stated purpose.

The Meeting Facilitator should also be comfortable with using Zoom's capabilities to assist the Library Staff in hosting the meeting (monitoring the chat, moderating the discussion, muting or removing participants if needed).

When it is time for the meeting to begin, the library staff hosting the meeting will state:

“Welcome to [MEETING NAME].  Hosting an online meeting with your group is a service the library provides to our community groups without charge.  Just as with hosting meetings in our physical space, the library must enforce rules regarding respect, non-discrimination, and accessibility.  If you have concerns in that regard, please let me know by sending me a private message during the meeting.  And now I’ll turn it over to [NAME] to start the meeting.”

It is expressly understood on behalf of the group that:

• The library is hosting the meeting;
• An employee of the library will initiate the videocall;
• An employee of the library will co-facilitate the technical aspects of the meeting;
• An employee of the library will participate in the meeting as set forth above to ensure the applicable rules and the conditions of this Agreement are fulfilled;
• Participants who do not abide by the library’s rules will be muted or removed from the meeting, in the library’s sole discretion;
• The library can cancel or terminate the meeting, in its sole discretion, at any time.

Please alert the library to any ADA considerations for hosting this meeting.  For meetings with more than 50 participants, the Meeting Facilitator should be ready to discuss accessibility objectives with the Library Staff member.

We welcome your ideas for making our co-hosted meetings better.  Constructive feedback may be sent to [e-mail].

Signed: ___________________________________

                        [library representative]

Acknowledged: __________________________________ on DATE: ______________.

                                    [cardholder]

Unless there is a bylaw, policy, or contract barring staff serving as the meeting host, this is most definitely a service that can be offered even when your library cannot be physically open to the public.  However, at all times, it must be clear that this is the library’s meeting.  Account ID’s, passwords, and hosting capabilities should not be given away.  Co-hosting should never be converted into changing the host.  The meeting “intro-text” should be read every time; it is there to make sure that the library’s primary role is documented in every single meeting you host.  Just like a meeting room should never be used when the library is not staffed, the virtual meeting room must remain in the control of your institution—otherwise, there could be concerns with the license. 

And with that, I wish whoever at your library becomes the “virtual meeting staffer,” a stout heart, a quick finger on the mute button, and lots of community-oriented fun.

[1] I have since been informed that either pronunciation is acceptable.  Fortunately, with my spare fashion sense, it is not a word I use often.

[2] As found May 23, 2020 at https://zoom.us/reasonableusepolicy.

[3] The conditions in these documents will change from library to library.  Some libraries have to enforce the rules of a landlord.  Others will decide to charge a nominal fee (DO NOT do that for a Zoom meeting), or restrict use to a charitable use.

[4] As found on May 23, 2020 at https://zoom.us/terms.

[5] By the time I got to this part of the list, I was thinking “Jeez, it’s an ugly world out there, and Zoom has a front-row seat to it.”

I had initially considered bundling this question with another submission about temporary actions or policies during COVID-19.  After all, both questions relate to policy, and a big goal of “Ask the Lawyer” is to provide legal information efficiently.

But after drafting that answer, and considering this question further, I did away with that notion.  The member has isolated an incredibly critical concern about employee/employer safety and authority.  It is a question that demands—and deserves—its own consideration.

But before we dive into the legalities, let's consider the practical implications of the member’s question.  Why would an employer want to “exclude vulnerable employees” from the work site? On the flip side, why would an employer want to set policies “requiring” a class of employee termed “non-vulnerable” to return to work?

Near as I can figure, the employer would want to do this to promote safety; a laudable goal.

However, that is not precisely the approach an employer in New York State is empowered to take.

Under both the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the New York Human Rights Law (“HRL”), employers are barred from discriminating against employees on the basis of real or perceived disability. This means that a NY employer who knows—or suspects—an employee might be particularly “vulnerable” (in this case, to COVID-19, but in other cases, due to pregnancy, or other medical conditions), is barred from simply labeling that employee “vulnerable” and taking steps to limit or change the terms of their employment on the basis of that conclusion. 

Rather, disability law is set up to empower employees to identify their needs, and then—under the most confidential circumstances possible—work with their employer to receive reasonable accommodations in consideration of those needs.

For example, a person whose medical history means that they might be more vulnerable to COVID-19 would work with their medical provider to provide documentation setting forth the risks and requesting a reasonable accommodation on the basis of those risks.

Employers are always welcome to let employees know the ways in which they may request accommodations. For instance, as libraries, museums, and archives consider limited or full reopening, employers can transmit those plans to their employees, and invite them to submit any request for accommodations based on the anticipated additional exposure to on-site visitors.

Think of it in the same way your institution might think of planning a large event that would invite the maximum number of people possible to your library or a rented venue. When planning for an event that will attract a large number of people, almost every institution will consider the need to accommodate people who use mobility devices. They might not contact those people in advance, even if they know they're coming…rather, the event will be planned with those accommodations in mind.

A good example of this, of relevance to the current COVID-19 crisis, is an employee with a respiratory disability.  As we know, people who have had respiratory illnesses in the past may be especially vulnerable to COVID-19 now.  These are people who may request accommodations—potentially including the ability to work off-site—based on a disability (a good list of accommodations for respiratory issues can be found here, on the Job Accommodation Network).

So, with all that being said, the answer to the member’s questions (Can they set policies that exclude vulnerable employees from being able to return to work? Can they set policies requiring non-vulnerable employees to return to work?) is: NOT AS SUCH.

However.

Employers can most certainly, when otherwise allowed by law, policy, contract, and Executive Order, require employees to return to work.  After that…

Once an employer is able/decides to re-open, in addition to any re-opening conditions, the employer must consider any requests for reasonable accommodations.  This could absolutely include modifications for those whose disabilities render them vulnerable to COVID-19.  The employer can even generally pre-plan to offer those modifications.  Or they can make working from home, or working on-site, optional (if the work can, in the sole determination of the employer, still be done).  But what they can’t do is pre-sort their employees by “vulnerability.”

There is one final critical point to make here, at this time (May 19, 2020).

Institutions re-opening as part of “NY Forward,” may be required to monitor the health of their employees in a way that typically would seem intrusive, and in some contexts, would even be illegal.

For example, here is a sample of the monitoring required under NY Forward, taken from a sample safety plan.  NOTE: this is taken from the NYForward’s Phase One Retail Summary, and is provided as an example, only:

Employees who are sick should stay home or return home, if they become ill at work.

[Employers must] [i]mplement mandatory health screening assessment (e.g. questionnaire, temperature check) before employees begin work each day and for essential visitors (but not customers), asking about (1) COVID-19 symptoms in past 14 days, (2) positive COVID-19 test in past 14 days, and/or (3) close contact with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 case in past 14 days.

Assessment responses must be reviewed every day and such review must be documented.

Employees who present with COVID-19 symptoms should be sent home to contact their health care provider for medical assessment and COVID-19 testing. If tested positive, employee may only return completing a 14-day quarantine. Employees who present with no symptoms but have tested positive in past 14 days may only return to work after completing a 14-day quarantine.

As stated, this is the procedure for Phase 1 re-opening of limited retail operations.  When will libraries subject to closure in NY be able to re-open under NY Forward, and under what terms?  As I write this, the New York Library Association, NYLA, has this on their COVID-19 page, which states[1]:

With input from our partners from the Public Library System Directors Organization (PULISDO), NYLA has been advocating for libraries to be permissively included in phase two.  This would allow libraries to be a phased re-opening processed, to be determined at the local level, as early as when their region enters Phase Two.  The decision on when, as well as the steps and procedures for re-opening, are best determined locally, and in conjunction with the local library system and county Department of Health.

This is a critical service to association and public libraries by NYLA, and every board and director should be monitoring this site for updates.

Of course, some libraries may have determined that the current workforce restrictions don’t apply to them at all (that they are exempt right along with school districts and local governments).  And it is possible some libraries and museums, affiliated with larger institutions, will not be able to open until their region hits “Phase Four” (covering educational institutions).  And it may be that by the point libraries are given the go-ahead, the emergency has abated to the point where monitoring of employees won’t be required. 

But any library contemplating opening, in addition to being ready to consider ADA accommodations for those more vulnerable to COVID-19, needs to be considering these possible employee monitoring requirements, as well as the need to adopt any NY Forward-required Safety Plan, or similar documentation showing they are taking defined, affirmative steps to protect employee and public safety.

Public and association libraries developing the policies they need to re-open have a large, complex task before them.  Thank you for a question that explores a critical consideration of that work.

[1] Just to emphasize: NYLA is a critical resource at this time and all libraries should be monitoring this page daily for updates.

New York school libraries[1] operate in a complex web of regulations governing student privacy.  Laws such as FERPA, CPLR 4509, and “ED 2-d” all restrict what can be done (and can’t be done) with library records related to students.

At “Ask the Lawyer,” we’ve spent a fair amount of time on FERPA[2] and CLPLR 4509[3], so if you need some background on those, check the footnotes for this sentence.

That said, I have never written an “Ask the Lawyer” on ED 2-d, the new law protects “personally identifiable information” (“PII”)” held by a school district.  I’ll weave the relevant parts of the law into this answer.

And I have never written about (or used) SORA.  Since SORA is at the heart of this question, here is a little background on that:

SORA is a service provided by Rakuten/Overdrive.  In its own words, it provides “Millions of ebooks and audiobooks for your students. Thousands of publishers. Comes loaded with hundreds of premium titles at no cost. Infinite reading possibilities on practically any device.”[4]  Participating school districts enable student access to SORA through their own log-in points (the mechanics of which vary from school to school).

How does the service work?  As one reviewer put it[5]: “SORA can be downloaded for free by all students and teachers. If their school or district is an OverDrive partner, they can then use SORA to access their school's digital collection and also connect with the local public library's digital collection.”[6]

And finally, it is worth noting that SORA has a very cute logo: a puffy-silver astronaut, soaring wide-eyed into an eye-relaxing sky of silver-blue.  The astronaut is a combination of a Pokémon, Sailor Moon, and Big Hero Six.[7]  He is ready to read, and all set to escort your students to a universe of reading, too!  The logo is so cute, I don’t know how the member could think this company could do any wrong.

But savvy librarians are not distracted by cute logos.  And in this case, our savvy librarian-member asks: is use of SORA by a district compliant with the privacy protections of New York State Education Law 2-d?

We’ll start this analysis with a term defined by the law: “third party contractor,” which ED 2-d defines as:

 … any person or entity, other than an educational agency, that receives student data or teacher or principal data from an educational agency pursuant to a contract or other written agreement for purposes of providing services to such educational agency, including but not limited to data management or storage services, conducting studies for or on behalf of such educational agency, or audit or evaluation of publicly funded programs.

If SORA (or another service), meets this definition, then the district/school using it must implement the requirements of Ed 2-d, which are in the regulations found here:

http://www.nysed.gov/common/nysed/files/programs/data-privacy-security/part-121.pdf

I would set the full requirements out in this answer, but they are lengthy, and the regulations are about as plainly worded as can be.

In addition, for a library at a specific school in New York, there is a more institution-specific way to find these requirements.  To comply with Ed 2-d, every school district must have their own “District Privacy Officer” (“DPO”)[8] and that DPO must ensure that their institution develops and publishes a document called the “Parents Bill of Rights for Data Privacy and Security.”[9]

The parents’ “Bill of Rights” must list the district/school’s obligations vis-à-vis third-party contractors, including precise requirements for the protection of student information accessed by a specific contractor.  In other words, for each “third party contractor” (like, potentially, SORA), a district/school must publish the unique “supplemental” contract terms they’ve created to ensure the service meets Ed 2-d requirements. 

Readers who want to see the Ed 2-d criteria of their own particular district or school should be able to find it by searching for that district’s “Bill of Rights.”[10]  For any district using Overdrive and/or SORA, the “Bill of Rights” will either contain supplemental terms applicable to SORA, or they will have determined that their use of SORA does not disclose any PII.

So here is the question at the heart of the member’s question: does use of SORA, as arranged by a district, disclose PII to Overdrive?  While each district needs to make that determination on its own, in my opinion, any third party contractor that students must log into using a school-issued ID, after which the student will access content that supplements their school library’s collection (and be able annotate and leave notes about[11]), has a high likelihood of collecting PII.   

But as I say, it will be up to the district’s DPO to make the call.  If that call is: “Heck, yeah, they’ll be getting PII,” the district will then need to follow the law and regulations[12] to ensure the use complies. This means verifying that the contract has the right Ed 2-d requirements, and supplementing its “Bill of Rights” by disclosing the precise requirements the contract imposes on the contractor.  But if that call is: “We checked it out, and nope, no PII heading out the door here,” then nothing further is needed (insofar as ED 2-d is concerned).

While it may seem like I am punting on this answer (“Go see your DPO!”[13]) I can say that the SORA Privacy Policy[14], as published on May 20, 2020, does contain the elements that are consistent with the requirements of ED 2-d.  As but one example, Overdrive has a process for correcting records, which provides:

If you are a teacher or administrator at an educational institution using the school Services, please email privacy@overdrive.com to request the review, correction, and/or removal of a student’s Personal Information, and we will facilitate your access to and correction of such Personal Information promptly upon your request.

The ability to “challenge the records” of a contractor is a requirement of Ed 2-d.[15]  This suggests to me that Overdrive knows SORA will be gathering protected information, and the service is ready to enter into contracts that give the required assurances.  But only a look at the school’s contract for SORA, and its precise definition of PII, can ensure that.

The bottom line?  No matter what the published “Privacy Policy” of SORA says, there is no way to fully confirm a school library’s use of SORA complies with Ed 2-d law and regulations until the district’s designated DPO[16]:

1) Assesses what information will be accessed by or transferred to Rakutan/Overdrive as a result of their district contracting for SORA;

2) Determines if that information is PII as defined by Ed 2-d[17];

3) If it is PII, ensures the contract complies with Ed2-d; and

4)  Takes the steps to publish the “Bill of Rights” supplement as required.[18]

In other words: in Ed 2-d compliance, there should be no guesswork.  By working with the school’s DPO, the guesswork should be entirely removed.

Thanks for a great question!

[1] Not to be confused with New York’s “school district public libraries,” which are chartered libraries operating separately from their associated district.

[2] Patron Confidentiality in School Libraries

[3] RAQs featuring CLPLR

[4] As boasted at https://company.overdrive.com/k-12-schools/discover-sora/.

[5] Found at https://thelearningcounsel.com/article/sora-helps-give-k-12-students-more-access-ebooks-audiobooks-and-school%E2%80%99s-digital-collection

[6] If you want to read some harsh, some glowing, and some occasionally amusing reviews, check out the SORA review content here: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.overdrive.mobile.android.sora&hl=en_US  I particularly enjoyed the brief but scathing review by a person who thought the service was supposed to be a game.

[7] I am not one myself, but I have anime fans in the family.  It rubs off.

[8] Per Regulation 121.8(a), “Each educational agency shall designate a Data Protection Officer to be responsible for the implementation of the policies and procedures required in Education Law §2-d and this Part, and to serve as the point of contact for data security and privacy for the educational agency.”  That’s the “DPO.”

[9] No, that is not a typo in “parents.”  The law left out either possessive apostrophe (“parent’s” or, for the plural possessive “parents’”).  Grammar matters, NY Assembly…grammar matters.

[10] I tried this on several different districts/schools across the state; a few institutions that shall remain nameless seem to have flunked, but admittedly, I didn’t look much harder than a cursory google search—which worked for many of the other institutions searched.

[11] Yes, I watched the SORA demo and paid attention to the additional features, which includes highlighting content and typing in comments.  I guess it beats writing in a book, which, to my husband’s great chagrin, I have been known to do (only to my own books).

[12] Found here: http://www.nysed.gov/data-privacy-security

[13] This is also critical because the definition of PII may vary slightly from institution from institution.  This is because student PII is based on the definition of “education records” in FERPA, which does allow some variance in “directory information” and other nuances this footnote is too small to cover.

[14] As found on May 19, 2020, at: https://company.cdn.overdrive.com/policies/privacy-policy-for-children.htm

[15] Regulation 121.3(c)(4)

[16] Or designee, of course.

[17] “Personally Identifiable Information, as applied to student data, means personally identifiable information as defined in section 99.3 of Title 34 of the Code of 3 Federal Regulations implementing the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C 1232g, and as applied to teacher and principal data, means personally identifiable information as such term is defined in Education Law §3012-c (10).”

[18] I realize this answer may give DPO’s out there extra work.  I am afraid I can’t apologize, since vigilance about privacy is a beautiful thing.  And hey—job security!

For this answer, we are again joined by Jessica Keltz, associate attorney at the Law Office of Stephanie Adams, PLLC.

As we noted in our March 24 Ask The Lawyer answer (Audiobooks and Copyright Laws in a Pandemic), copyright law does still apply despite the pandemic and the many needs it has created for alternative outlets, resources and programming.

For a public library, unless the service is an adaptation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, any recording of a copyrighted work needs to be made with the permission of the rights holder. Under fair use doctrine, limited excerpts can be read, interspersed with commentary. But a full work presented alone in its entirety or in substantial excerpts, without the permission of the rights holder, may not be. This doctrine remains in effect.

One solution to consider is reading either works that are in the public domain, and/or works whose rights holders have given permission for this type of use during the pandemic or otherwise. Readers may have heard about LeVar Burton Reads, a pandemic podcast from the iconic Reading Rainbow host, in which Burton encountered this exact struggle and was given permission by noted authors including Neil Gaiman and Jason Reynolds. While most local libraries will not have Burton’s star-studded cast of Twitter followers from which to draw partnerships, they may find folks in their own communities who are happy to freely share their own works.

A list of ideas for children’s books in the public domain is here: https://concretecomputing.com/thoughts/list-of-public-domain-free-books-for-kids-by-grade-level/

Project Gutenberg is also often recommended for searching for works in the public domain: http://www.gutenberg.org/

This answer is being composed on May 9, 2020.  New York is still fully on PAUSE, but the Governor has divided the State into ten districts who must hit seven defined metrics to begin rolling back various restrictions.[1]  Careful prognosticators are cautioning that what is rolled back can also be re-implemented, so caution and flexibility are the watchwords of the times.

In this context, many libraries are considering a phased resumption or extension of operations, and to do so, may need to adjust many of their standing policies.

As the member’s question highlights, the stakes for such adjustments can be high.  The greatest risk in taking emergency and temporary measures are that: 1) they are not legal; 2) they create legal but mission-averse collateral consequences[2]; 3) they are legal and perfectly mission-aligned, but still just make people mad.

Right now, libraries don’t have the luxury of time to fully mitigate these risks.  But collecting, assessing, and documenting some steps, a library can do its best to avoid them.

Here is how to do that:

Step 1: Inventory your board’s authority and obligations

Library leadership seeking to temporarily adjust library policy to address COVID-19 must first assemble the following:

• The library’s charter
• The library’s bylaws
• The library’s policies
• Any collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”)
• Any employment contracts
• Any judicial orders, settlement terms binding your library[3]
• Any COVID-19-related resolutions
• Current budget
• The 202-series Executive Orders posted at https://www.governor.ny.gov/executiveorders

Many libraries will already have these assembled from previous such exercises.

Step 2: Inventory the specific policies your library needs to adjust

This “inventory” should include a citation to each policy your library needs to adjust, the basis of the need, any legal compliance considerations, what the precise terms of the proposed temporary change are, and, as the member writes, the reversion trigger of duration of the change.

This sounds painstaking and arduous, and it will be.  Fortunately, when it comes to the painstaking and arduous act of organizing information, libraries have a home team advantage. 

And don’t worry, in the next step I give you a chart to sort it all out.

Step 3: Identify what’s needed: alteration of the policy, or complete suspension?

In some cases, a policy will just need some small, temporary alterations to continue serving the requirements of the law and the needs of the library and its community.  However, some policies are so complex, or so rife with temporarily unsafe practices, they will simply need to be suspended.[4]

Here is a chart template that sets the “inventory” categories of Step 2, with examples the two types of adjustments:

Step 4: Contrast the adjustments with your library’s obligations

This is really a second look at the third column- “Law or policy governing change.” 

It encourages your leadership—and ideally, your lawyer—to take a deep look at any standing legal obligations, and make sure your temporary adjustment doesn’t run afoul of them.

For instance, in the Meeting Room Policy example, let’s say that, per the policy, the library had a standing, written agreement for the room to be used by a writer’s group on a weekly basis.  This might require an extra step in your adjustment to the policy, with some targeted outreach to cancel what might be regarded by the group as a written contract.[5]

SPECIAL NOTE FOR LIBRARIES WITH UNIONS: Step 4 is especially critical if there is a union contract involved.  Throughout this time of COVID-19 response, I have seen many examples of situations where a library’s prospective plans have been impacted by CBA provisions for emergency closure or other obligations. I have written about that at length elsewhere,[6] so for now, will simply say: in all of this a library’s union should be an ally and critical stakeholder promoting employee well-being, and hopefully the need for any changes to routine policy and procedure can be approached in that spirit. 

Step 5:  Diplomacy Check

Technically, this is not a “legal” step, but I can say that in many ways this step is the most important part of avoiding needless legal threats and hostility.

Step 5 involves taking yet another look at the chart, and adding other two columns, covering: “Who will be impacted by this policy change?” and “How can we roll out the change to lessen any negative impact?”[7]

Here is what these columns look like in my imaginary examples:

And with all that legwork done, we can now answer the member’s core questions:

Question 1: What elements would we need to include in this addendum to make it legally enforceable, while not re-writing the entire policy manual?
The elements would be 1) a preamble setting forth the board’s authority, goal and process for the temporary changes; 2) a list identifying the policies that are temporarily suspended or temporarily altered; and 3) an articulation of the replacement policy or temporary changes.

Question 2: What are recommendations for the preamble of such an addendum?

Here is a template for the preamble:

The [NAME] Library was chartered in [YEAR] by the New York Board of Regents, and operates under the authority of that Charter, the New York Education and Not-for-Profit corporation law.  In accordance with that authority and in compliance with the Library’s bylaws [OPTIONAL IF UNION AGREEMENT OR OTHER CONTRACTS ALSO GOVERN: and all other applicable obligating documents], to promote the mission of the library, the safety of all it serves and employs, and the needs of the community at this time, the following temporary changes to the following policies are made:

And here is how you link it to the other elements:

[INSERT chart with only columns 1, 4, and 5].

Question 3: What should we make sure to include in the board motion to enact the emergency policy addendum such that it supersedes the standard manual?

Here is template language for a board motion:

WHEREAS the State of New York is currently subject to Executive Orders governing the State’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic; and

WHEREAS the [NAME] Library’s mission is to [INSERT]; and

WHEREAS some of the Executive Orders impact the ability of the Library to fulfill its mission while abiding by its usual policies and procedures; and

[INSERT ONLY IF APPLICABLE] WHEREAS the Library is also subject to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement signed on DATE: and

[INSERT ONLY IF APPLICABLE] WHEREAS the Library is also subject to [variable]; and

WHEREAS the Library has developed temporary adjustments to its usual policies and procedures, with all due consideration of its standing obligations, to aid itself in operating safely and in compliance with the orders, and in period of recovery to follow;

BE IT RESOLVED that the following temporary changes, for the corresponding durations sets forth below, are enacted, effective immediately:

[insert chart with columns 1, 4, and 5]

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the full chart setting forth these temporary adjustments shall be posted on the Library’s usual place for posting policies no later than [DATE]; and

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following measures to positively communicate these temporary adjustments shall be taken:

[INSERT measures identified in column 7].

Final thoughts

When using these steps, it will be important to remember that an individual library’s response will be informed by not only their unique documents and priorities, but which of New York’s ten regions[9] they are in.  This means that what works for one library won’t necessarily work for a similar library in the next county over.  Nor should one library be judged by what is being done at another.

And finally—and I have mentioned this in several columns lately, but I will mention it again—attorneys throughout New York State are stepping up to the pro bono plate these days.  Now is the time to see if your library can enlist an attorney familiar with municipal, education, employment law, even if it is just to take a fresh, hard look at your final product.  If you can’t find that attorney, you can ask for a referral from your local bar association.

By assembling the documents listed in this answer, and identifying your priorities and concerns in the chart, you’ll help that attorney help your library.  In addition, I welcome questions from local attorneys who are helping their local libraries pro bono; they can reach me at adams@losapllc.com, or my library paralegal Jill at libraryspecialist@losapllc.com.

As the member’s excellent question suggests, the more unified and well-developed the response of libraries can be, the more we can avoid challenges, and focus libraries’ energy on the business of serving the public.  Sadly, the need for that energy will be great.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to answer this very important question. 

[1] https://www.governor.ny.gov/programs/new-york-forward

[2] Like a writers’ group saying: “Forget it.  We’ll just meet at Starbuck’s.”

[3] For instance, if a patron brought a legal action under ADA, and the library reached a compromise it is legally bound to follow.  Most libraries will not be subject to any such restrictions, but I want to ensure they aren’t forgotten.

[4] In my experience, unless the law mandates that you have one (for instance, certain libraries must, under the Education law, have an internet access policy) suspending a policy is also the way to avoid inviting arguments with people who will try and word-smith your temporary adjustments.  As a lawyer, I do enjoy a good quibble, but there’s a time and place for it, and debating when a writer’s group can get back in the community room might not be the best use of energy right now.

[5] It really sounds like I am picking on this writer’s group!  I’m not, we’re a fan of writer’s groups in my law firm (they produce writers, who are part of our client base).  I think it’s just that in my mind everyone is, at this mid-May point, is very eager to resume normal social activity.  I know I am.  Meeting on Zoom is like eating low-fat olive oil.

[6] COVID-19 and part-time pay

[7] This is not a legal tactic tested on the bar exam.  I learned this from my mentors at Niagara University, where I served as General Counsel for ten years.  When legal strategy was proposed, their first thoughts were always about how it would hit the very real people involved. 

[8] One of my favorite quotes about this phenomenon is from Parks and Recreation: “So what I hear when I am being yelled at is people caring loudly at me.”

[9] My poor staff.  They just got used to New York being divided into nine library council districts, and 23 public library system districts.   Val, our keeper of the “library map,” should be getting danger pay.