The Citrus County Library Advisory Board on Tuesday voted to table a draft internal rubric intended to guide board and staff reviews of books and other materials that patrons challenge.

Board members said the draft — presented by Library Director Adam Chang as a starting point for discussion — should be refined before the board adopts it. Director Adam Chang said the document is a draft meant to help the advisory board and staff evaluate whether a work should remain in the collection, be relocated within the collection, or be removed. "This is a work in progress," Chang told the board.

The matter drew extensive public comment. John Labriola, a Citrus County resident, said he opposed adding questions to the public reconsideration form and urged any expanded questionnaire be used only in internal staff reviews. "If the material has received an award, that also would not make it appropriate for Citrus County," Labriola said during public comment, urging the board not to require challengers to research awards or shelf placement elsewhere.

Board members debated whether the tool should be a qualitative guiding document or a numeric rubric. Some members favored a numeric scorecard to produce consistent documentation; others warned that fixed scores could unduly constrain reviewers. Lenora Nelson, a Library Advisory Board member who requested guidelines after a recent appeal, told the board the document was intended to help the panel reach consistent, documented decisions: "If everybody is looking at the same things, there is not only the ability for us to grade it or categorize it, but it also gives something for the public that when we get done, they can put it all together to say this is the reason why this was done."

During the discussion directors and board members agreed staff could gather background material for future reviews — for example, whether comparable libraries own the title or whether the work has professional reviews — but several board members said staff-provided background must not create the perception of bias. Director Chang said staff can supply that data but cautioned against letting staff materials carry undue weight in the board's independent review.

The board voted to table the draft rubric to its August meeting to allow members time to review an example rubric referenced by board member Leonora (Lenora) Nelson and to submit proposed edits to Director Chang. The board chair announced the motion carried after a vote. The board also set interim procedural limits for public comment during the working session; at the meeting members limited speaker time for the immediate public-comment period to two minutes with a structured allocation of pro/anti speakers to ensure balance.

Next steps the board directed: staff will circulate the draft rubric and the example rubric Nelson provided, compile a short synopsis of the meeting's suggestions, and return a revised draft at the board's August meeting for further discussion and possible adoption. The board emphasized the draft remains an internal working document and is not a change to the public reconsideration form used by patrons.

The conversation included numerous public commenters who urged either stronger protections for children or broader reliance on professional reviews; speakers also raised specific proposals such as adding a question about whether the material can be read aloud in public.

The board did not adopt any permanent changes to policy at the meeting and did not remove or relocate any materials as part of this agenda item.