Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Book Bans Library Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge St. Francis Area Schools to rescind book ban and restore library access
Summary
Dozens of residents told the St. Francis Area Schools board on May 12 that the district's book-review policy and recent removals violate state rules, limit student access and harm community trust. Commenters pushed the board to rescind policy 606/606.5 and to rely on educators and librarians for selections.
Dozens of community members told the St. Francis Area Schools Board of Education on May 12 that the district’s review and removal of library books under policy 606 (identified by speakers as policy 606.5) is unlawful and harmful to students.
Speakers at the meeting’s public-comment period — which the board limited to two minutes per person — framed the removals as censorship that reduces students’ access to diverse perspectives. “These are not harmful books, they're important ones,” said Nikki Cruzdie, who said she had read many titles removed under the policy. June Anderson told the board, “You are breaking the law,” and cited the district’s handling of the review process. Laura Magnuson urged the board to “Please rescind policy 606.5 and stop this censorship.”
The comments echoed a larger concern across speakers that the removals were driven by outside groups rather than local educators. “I don't see how they have any business playing political games with our school board,” said Tyler Johnson, naming Moms for Liberty as one outside group he said had influenced local lists. Other speakers tied the removals to wider harms: Sarah Raffi said, “This policy is teaching casual cruelty,” and Brian Baumgart called the move “the antithesis of effective community.”
Several commenters referenced Minnesota Statute 134.51 and the First Amendment while urging the board to restore librarians’ and teachers’ discretion in selecting materials. Laura Magnuson told the board the district had violated Minnesota Statute 134.51, saying the district “is placing our district in potential financial irresponsibility” by spending on litigation rather than classroom programs.
Board members did not take action on the book list during the meeting. The board noted it is involved in active litigation on the topic and announced a special closed session for May 15 to consult with attorneys about library materials and related litigation. The superintendent said attorneys for the district and the plaintiffs had been in communication and that settlement communications had occurred; no further legal details were provided at the meeting.
Speakers came from a range of residents and parents who said they have long ties to the district. Several asked the board to follow the district mission — to “equip all students with the knowledge and skills” — by allowing educators and librarians to decide instructional and library materials.
The board’s public-comment period included nine speakers on the topic; the board emphasized that no formal action would be taken during consideration of visitors and that staff or the superintendent might respond if appropriate. The closed-session meeting scheduled for May 15 was listed on the board’s calendar that evening as a meeting to be held under attorney–client privilege to discuss litigation regarding library materials.
Community members who raised concerns emphasized restoring access and relying on professional curation rather than external blacklists. Several speakers asked the board to rescind the policy or to follow statutory review procedures; board members did not vote on any change to policy 606 or 606.5 at the May 12 meeting.
