Residents fault Columbia County library policy changes and process at July 1 commission meeting

Several Columbia County residents used public comment at the county Board of Commissioners meeting on July 1, 2025, to criticize recent library policy changes and board actions, saying the process has driven out staff and constrained access to materials.

Karen Parham, a resident who spoke to the board, said the county 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,” and said library staff have left in “record numbers.”

Parham told commissioners she believed reconsideration procedures were not followed, that decisions were rushed and that some books were moved between sections inconsistently. “The whole process was hasty, predetermined, and politically driven,” she said.

Marlena Bergeron, another resident, described specific collection changes and said some books targeted for reconsideration are widely available in other libraries. “The books being targeted today often by women, people of color, or queer authors, or all 3,” Bergeron said. She also said recent shelving and reconsideration decisions removed or relocated material for young children and that parents and librarians were not adequately consulted.

Howard Johnson, who identified himself as a resident, told the board he supported dissolving the county advisory board and urged future appointments to include people “who have a master's in librarial science” and professional experience running libraries.

Speakers tied their concerns to a regional restructuring of library governance and a set of guidelines that, they said, have been enforced without sufficient local oversight. Parham said Columbia County representatives opposed revisions at the Greater Clark Hills Regional Library Board and “overrode the other counties.” Bergeron requested the county “resend” the guidelines and reconsider the process.

Commissioners did not take immediate formal action on public comments during the time allotted for citizen remarks. Members of the public framed their appeals as requests for policy review, clearer procedures for reconsideration, and restoration of staff and services.

Why it matters: public-library policy affects access to materials, staffing and community programming. Residents said the process has morale and service consequences for library users and employees; they urged the board to prioritize professional expertise in future appointments.

The public comment period included multiple speakers and covered several collection examples and staffing concerns; speakers referenced planning and governance matters that they said occurred at recent committee and regional board meetings. Commissioners acknowledged the comments but did not announce a schedule for further action during the meeting.

Ending: Residents asked the commission to reconsider the guidelines and appointments and to restore local oversight and professional standards for library operations. The board may address the item in later committee meetings or future agendas.