Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Library Materials Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Stillwater board hears heated public comment and first reading of new library materials policy
Summary
Three public commenters challenged library purchases they described as sexually explicit; the board’s policy committee presented a first reading of a new mandatory library-materials policy that would formalize selection criteria, a challenge process and reporting to the commissioner of education.
Public comment at a Stillwater Area Public Schools board meeting focused on objections to library materials and what three speakers described as undisclosed distribution of LGBTQIA-themed books in elementary grades.
The board followed public comment with a first reading of proposed policy 606.5, Library Materials, a new mandatory policy staff say is based on legal review and was developed with input from media specialists and the policy committee.
Why it matters: The library policy sets a formal process for initial selection, defines who may request reconsideration, requires a district review committee for contested titles and requires the district to report completed challenges to the Minnesota Department of Education as statutorily required. Board members and staff said the policy is intended to make selection and reconsideration decisions transparent and consistent while protecting instructional discretion.
During public comment Michael McCarthy, Kate Harry and Catherine Hobbs told the board they believed the district was placing sexually explicit or age-inappropriate material in school libraries without adequate parental notice. McCarthy asked the board to “hold community listening sessions” and proposed a parental-notice approach. Harry cited Minnesota statute 617.271 while urging the board to treat parents as primary caregivers and to avoid “indoctrination.” Hobbs said parents were distressed by images she described as “adult ******* gear” and asked the board how such material would make younger children feel included.
Paul, the district policy presenter, told the board the draft policy had been drafted following legal counsel review and with input from media specialists. He summarized key provisions: the library media specialist is primarily responsible for initial selection in consultation with district leadership and other professional staff; selection criteria emphasize curriculum support, literary and artistic value, age-appropriateness and diverse perspectives; material will remain available while a formal review proceeds; eligible challengers include affected students (18+), parents or guardians of enrolled minors, building principals, the superintendent or a quorum of the board; the superintendent appoints a review committee; and the committee’s recommendation is provided to the superintendent with an appeal option.
Board discussion focused on several points raised by members and media specialists: whether to accept physical book donations (the draft currently disallows donated materials but allows financial donations for library purchases), whether a time limit should be added for committee review of a challenge, and how to ensure students’ voices are included on review committees. Director Kelsenberg asked whether the public can see what books are in the catalog; staff said the district catalog is online but acknowledged the link is not obvious and could be better publicized.
The draft’s legal standard section references U.S. Supreme Court precedent that school officials may regulate speech in an educational environment where materials are obscene, vulgar, lewd or plainly offensive; staff said that legal standard will guide the committee’s review criteria. At least one board member suggested adding an explicit carve-out to clarify that historically relevant but scientifically outdated materials should not be removed solely for factual inaccuracy.
On donations, legal counsel advised caution: disallowing in-kind book donations avoids placing the district in the position of appearing to accept books from one outside political group but not another. Board members asked staff to return with refined language that preserves media-specialist authority while addressing realistic situations — for example, replacing a damaged book already in the collection.
Next steps: The policy was presented for first reading and will return for further review and a second reading. Board members encouraged community feedback to staff by email and asked staff to refine language on donations, committee timelines and student participation.
Ending: The board did not vote on 606.5 at the meeting; the first reading concluded with staff and board members agreeing to continue work with media specialists and legal counsel before a second reading.
