Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Library Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to clarify library‑user privacy and impose penalty advances after Goffstown disclosure dispute
Summary
HB 666 would clarify that library cards and membership status are covered by New Hampshire’s law protecting library records and would create a civil remedy for unauthorized disclosure; supporters said the change is needed after an incident in which a local library released cardholder information that was later posted online.
Representatives and library trustees told the Senate Judiciary Committee HB 666 is intended to resolve confusion about whether library cards and membership status are covered by New Hampshire’s confidentiality law for library records and to provide a civil remedy when those records are improperly disclosed.
Sponsor Rep. Lisa Mazer, who represents Hillsborough District 44, said the bill clarifies RSA 201‑D:11 so it explicitly includes library cards and membership status among records protected from public disclosure. She described a local case in which library cards were produced in response to a right‑to‑know request and then posted on social media; she said that outcome “should never happen again.”
The bill would also add a civil penalty for violations and allow an affected person to seek a certified apology and monetary damages. Mazer said the House Judiciary Committee increased the penalty amount during the House floor process because members felt a larger deterrent was needed.
Opponents — including a Windham library trustee and a former state representative who sits on library boards — said parts of the bill are poorly drafted and could have unintended consequences. Attorney and trustee D.J. Withy said a library card in isolation carries limited personal information and warned that adding more categories into law without careful drafting can weaken open‑government norms. He also criticized a required notarized apology as “compelled speech” and urged the committee to remove that provision.
Senators asked whether a library card alone reveals what someone has read; witnesses said the card itself is a unique patron identifier that can be used to access borrowing history and library services, and that staff and patrons treat the card as personal information.
Representative Henry Geising (Hillsborough District 29) emphasized safety risks for victims of domestic violence, saying that published library registration information could reveal where someone is living and so place vulnerable people at risk. Several supporters suggested narrowing or rewording the bill to remove drafting problems while retaining an enforceable privacy safeguard.
The committee received mixed testimony; some municipal officials and public commenters supported stronger penalties and clearer statutory language, while attorneys and library trustees asked for specific drafting fixes and for removal of the notarized apology requirement.
