Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Library Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears update on book-review process, legal limits and timeline for formal objections
Summary
Board members asked why a checklist “yes” on potentially pornographic content does not automatically remove a book; district staff and counsel said state law and administrative rules require a multi-step review and formal objections trigger a committee process, with two titles retained so far and several removed or pulled pending review.
Board members pressed district staff on Monday for clearer rules and faster outcomes in the district’s book-review process after a recent wave of formal objections and a federal lawsuit involving 12 titles.
Dr. Burns and Dr. Carrie Burgess Watkins reviewed the district’s existing process, which follows state statutes and Florida Department of Education training guidance. Staff said the district provides committee members with a state-provided evaluation form that includes a checklist item asking whether material is pornographic or “harmful to minors.” Staff explained that committee members mark that checklist while they review a title, but the checklist item by itself is not a final removal vote.
Brett Steger, the district’s legal advisor, advised staff and the board that the district cannot adopt a policy that automatically removes a title simply because reviewers note sexual content; staff must follow the district’s formal procedures and statutory tests before removal because shortcuts could invite litigation. Steger told trustees the district’s prior broad removals were a factor in earlier federal litigation.
Staff said two titles discussed in the workshop—Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close and Beloved—were retained after committee review; other titles have been removed or placed in secure inventory while formal objections are processed. Staff said the district pulled titles identified in formal petitions from shelves within five days pending review, and that materials marked for removal are stored in a secure location and tracked in the Destiny inventory system.
Board members, including Ms. Simpkins and others, pressed for a simpler, two-step process: (1) a yes/no determination on whether material meets the statutory definition of pornographic/harmful to minors, and (2) a recommendation on retention. Staff responded they would work with Steger to study that procedural change but cautioned that statutory interpretation and past litigation counsel against bypassing steps laid out in policy and administrative rule 08/1933 (referenced by staff).
Staff also summarized practical steps already taken to speed review: rotating parent reviewers chosen by principals and library advisory councils, the option to use an informal district-level review for titles that are not the subject of a formal petition, and an intention to run concurrent informal and formal reviews to shorten timelines where possible. Staff told the board that they expect to finish the set of titles that were part of the federal lawsuit at the committee meeting on June 17.
Ending: Staff will prepare a timeline and tallies showing, for each formally challenged title, how many committee members flagged “pornographic” on the checklist and how each title ultimately was recommended; staff also will consult legal counsel before proposing any change to the multi-step review process.
