Pleasanton commission approves collection policy updates to comply with California law, asks staff to formalize reconsideration procedures

The Pleasanton Library Commission voted Sept. 4 to recommend that the City Council adopt a revised library collection development policy updated to comply with the California Freedom to Read Act (AB 18 25), and commissioners asked staff to develop a formal procedure for handling requests to reconsider materials.

Library staff said the draft contains “minimal changes” intended to satisfy the state requirement and to reaffirm longstanding selection principles. Staff read the draft wording highlighted in the packet, saying the policy acknowledges that “the library's collection meets the broad and diverse interests of the community and respects both the library's autonomy and the specific needs of the city,” language the staff said is drawn from the American Library Association Bill of Rights.

The change matters because the state law requires libraries to document how they select materials and how the public can raise concerns. Library staff noted the packet includes a request-for-reconsideration form and commits to “provide a written response within 30 days of receipt.” The form is available on the library’s collection development policy web page, staff said.

Commissioners raised procedure and recordkeeping concerns. Commissioner Woodwell asked how often the library receives reconsideration requests; staff said there is no central record they could find and that any historic requests may have been handled under different informal processes. Staff described the current practice as routing a completed form to the selector responsible for that collection area (for example, adult nonfiction, young adult or audiovisual), with the selector drafting a response that administration would review and sign.

Several commissioners asked that the process be formalized so a submission would not “fall through the cracks.” Commissioners suggested adding a short explanation of next steps to the form or website, documenting who reviews the submission, and creating a permanent record. Staff noted that city departments are governed by a record retention policy and said retention schedules generally allow a maximum of seven years for certain records while some items are retained for two years under law.

Commissioners also cited practices at other agencies. Staff referenced Santa Clara and Roseville as examples: Santa Clara’s process requires that the requester indicate they have read or consumed the material and uses a committee process with up to a 60-day review period; Roseville’s process included a youth member on the review panel and a rule barring resubmission of the same title for five years, staff said. Staff said adopting similar procedural details would be a policy change requiring more staff review and offered to bring procedure recommendations back to commission for further discussion.

After discussion the commission moved to approve the policy as drafted and forward it to the City Council; the vote was unanimous. Commissioners also approved a separate motion to place a future agenda item to review collection procedures alongside the policy so the commission could consider whether additional procedural language should be adopted or posted with the form.

The finalized policy and the commission’s recommendations will go to City Council for final approval on the timeline required by the state, with staff saying that the council approval and any state submission will occur before the end of the calendar year.