Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Library Materials Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates third‑party library review; trustees approve policy updates including regulation 63‑10
Summary
Board members and community speakers debated whether to hire a third‑party consultant to screen library books using an algorithmic review; trustees approved a set of policy and regulation updates (including regulation 63‑10) after discussion about review processes and parental options for challenges.
Board members held a 15‑minute discussion June 19 about whether to hire a third‑party reviewer to scan library collections for age‑appropriateness and about existing materials‑challenge procedures.
Director Bushgard introduced the idea, saying she had contacted a consultant who uses an algorithmic process to flag potentially age‑inappropriate titles for board review and that the service could be contracted on an ad‑hoc monthly basis. "It would be something that we would maybe hire for a month, see if anything is being reported that we agree with, and then move on from there," Bushgard said.
A board member and several parents raised concerns about potential bias in a candidate consultant — one speaker said the consultant was affiliated with Hillsdale College and read a company summary that described avoiding certain school library journals for perceived ideological bias. A parent and classroom teacher told the board they rely on third‑party resources such as Common Sense Media to preview titles and that the existing challenge policy provides a formal mechanism if a parent objects. A library‑media specialist provided input to the board that certain award lists (for example, annual Newbery or other curated lists) are purchased routinely and should not be delayed by an approval process; staff recommended clarifying policy 63‑10 to reflect that practice.
The board voted to approve a group of policies and regulations as presented, including the items listed in the agenda (policy/regulation numbers stated on the record as 14‑32, 2340, 6310 and regulation 63‑10). Vice President Griders moved the motion; Director Ponder seconded; the motion passed on voice vote. Trustees also set a time limit for the library‑review discussion and asked staff to return with options, including the current materials‑challenge procedure and any recommended policy language changes for a future reading.
Why this matters: community members expressed differing views about parental authority, transparency and the appropriate role for outside reviewers in determining age‑appropriate materials. Board and staff emphasized existing procedures for parents to challenge materials and asked that any changes be developed with input from building library staff and stakeholders.
No immediate contract was authorized; the board asked staff to refine policy language and present recommended next steps at a future meeting.
