Catawba County Board adopts library-review and nonsectarian invocation policies after heated public comment

The Catawba County Board of Education voted unanimously Feb. 23 to adopt a revised policy on selection, review and restriction of library materials and a separate policy allowing a nonsectarian, nondenominational invocation before meetings.

The policies were approved on second reading after more than an hour of public comment that included librarians, parents and community groups. Erin Shermyer, a school librarian, urged the board to let trained librarians make collection decisions and warned against viewpoint-based removals: "Librarians are uniquely situated to be the best at deciding what to put in the school libraries," she said, adding that collection decisions should be based on age, maturity and educational suitability, not ideology.

Jonathan Sink, presenting the invocation policy on behalf of administration, described it as a short (three minutes or less), nonsectarian opening to replace the current moment of silence and said public notice and a random drawing would be used to select participants. The second-reading text clarifies the invitation will be nonsectarian and that speakers would not be paid.

Board legal counsel and trustees framed the library policy as consistent with state authority that gives local boards exclusive power to select instructional and library materials; the draft cites North Carolina General Statute 115C-98 as the statutory basis for local authority. Under the adopted policy, the superintendent or the superintendent’s designee may temporarily recategorize materials (for example, transfer age-inappropriate materials to a different school), but permanent removal requires board action. Materials flagged for potential permanent removal must be acted on within 45 instructional days and will first go to a book challenge committee chaired by Lee Miller for review and recommendation to the full board.

Public comment included split views. Lawrence Weideman cited U.S. Supreme Court precedent about prayer in schools and asked the board why it would sanction prayer at meetings; Joanne Gardner and others said public prayer risks excluding non-Christian community members. Conversely, some speakers supported clearer guardrails for library content. Several public speakers also urged caution about administrative overreach and emphasized parental communication.

The board recorded unanimous approval for both policies on second reading. Board members did not attach a sunset or phased implementation to either policy; questions about committee membership and administrative implementation were discussed and referred to staff for operational details.

The next procedural step for flagged-materials challenges is the 45-instructional-day committee review period followed by any board action the committee recommends. Regarding the invocation policy, the superintendent’s office will issue public notice and the board will implement the random-selection process described in the policy.

Provenance: discussion and public comments on the library policy and invocation policy appear in the transcript beginning with public-comment speakers (Erin Shermyer at SEG 519) and the second-reading presentations and votes (policy discussion and vote beginning SEG 1360 through SEG 1516).