Residents criticize Columbia County library policy changes and new regional board at July 1 meeting

Several Columbia County residents used public comment time on July 1 to sharply criticize recent library policy changes, the county’s role in creating a new regional library board and what they described as a hasty reconsideration process that has driven staff departures.

At a committee meeting earlier, residents said, the county moved to dissolve the county advisory library board and transition to a new regional board. Karen Parham, addressing the board, said no appointments have been made to the new regional board and warned the county had effectively “created a shell of a board, so it doesn't have to hold public meetings while creating policies for the new region behind closed doors.”

Parham told commissioners she and local library staff consider the new guidelines unethical and that “most of our library staff feel betrayed,” saying circulation and children’s staff have left local branches. She said reconsideration requests were handled improperly and that the stated reshelving plan had not occurred. Parham said the reconsideration process was rushed: “3 librarians were supposed to review each book, but only Miss Evans did, reporting 8 decisions to Mister Luton for approval within 6 days of her start date.”

Howard Johnson, who identified himself as a local resident, told the board he supported dissolving the county advisory board because he believes “nonexperts have been appointed” previously and urged the commission to appoint people with professional library experience to any vacancies. He said he would attend future meetings to press the point.

Another commenter, Arlena Bergeron, connected the library debate to broader civic freedoms, saying communities must protect “freedom to assemble, freedom to read, and freedom to speak.” Bergeron and other speakers criticized what they described as politicized challenges to books and said some titles by authors of color and queer authors have been targeted; she named specific titles and authors during her remarks. Bergeron also said staff have been slandered and that the county’s actions have demoralized professionals who serve the community.

Speakers repeatedly asked the commission to “resend” the current guidelines and to follow professional library standards and legal advice. Comments referenced the Greater Clark Hills Regional Library Board and an attorney’s recommendations; one commenter said Columbia County representatives “opposed these changes and overrode the other counties.” Several speakers urged the commission to prioritize professional qualifications and to restore staff morale.

What residents said they want

- Appointments to the new regional board to include library professionals with appropriate qualifications, such as a master’s degree in library science. - A pause or reversal (“resend”) of the recently adopted regional guidelines until the reconsideration and reshelving processes are conducted per the written policy. - Transparency about how reconsiderations were handled and whether the county followed its own procedures.

Context from the meeting record

Speakers named specific books and described category changes and handling of reconsideration cases; they said some books were moved between adult, young-adult and graphic-novel categories and that at least one book was removed temporarily after a single email complaint. Several speakers said circulation and children’s positions have been vacated at branches; exact staff counts were not specified in the public record. One speaker referenced state legislation (SB 74) that had been discussed in previous county meetings and said the county’s actions were part of a broader pattern of politicized challenges to library materials.

The record shows broad community concern and multiple requests that the commission follow professional standards and legal advice before finalizing library policies. Commissioners did not take formal action on library policy during the July 1 meeting portion of the transcript provided; public comment was the primary venue for these remarks.