Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Library Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board revises model policy on challenged materials, clarifies GRAMA and library inventory access and orders audit
Summary
The committee amended a model policy on challenged library materials to align with GRAMA, restructure the policy, require statutory phrasing for obscene-animal-abuse references, clarify catalog access for parents, and directed staff to draft a timeline for a comprehensive audit of library acquisition and vendor relationships.
The Standards & Assessment Committee on May 18 amended the board’s model policy for sensitive library materials and directed staff to conduct a comprehensive audit of school library selection and acquisition practices.
Board members and staff debated several technical and legal points, including whether challenge filings could be kept confidential. Board member Bridal moved to replace a phrase promising confidentiality 'to the extent possible' with a statutory reference to GRAMA (the Government Records Access and Management Act) and a note that formal challenge documentation may be subject to public records requests. AAG Doan advised that GRAMA implications should be checked; the committee adopted the GRAMA language by unanimous vote.
Members also reviewed statutory language used to define 'unsuccessful' challenges (the model currently uses the word 'erroneous'); the Assistant Attorney General advised that the statutory formulation should be preserved in the model policy. The committee approved a reorganization of the model into two standalone sections — (a) library acquisition and curation protocols, and (b) reconsideration of challenged materials — to separate everyday collection management from formal reconsideration procedures.
To reflect a recent statutory addition, the committee directed staff to replace generic references to "animal abuse" with the statutory phrase "obscene animal abuse material as referenced in 76-5c-101" wherever that standard appears in the model policy. Members agreed the statutory phrasing helps distinguish literary depictions from intentionally obscene animal‑abuse content that the law targets.
The committee also amended the model policy to clarify parent access to catalog and checkout information through the LEA’s online platforms (parent login or public catalog) rather than requiring a spreadsheet export on demand. Staff (library media specialists) said most LEAs already make catalogs available online; the revised wording asks for clear access to the catalog and a student’s checkout history rather than specific file formats.
Finally, the committee unanimously directed staff to bring back a timeline for a comprehensive review and audit of school library material selection and acquisition practices — including funding sources, procurement procedures, vendor and publisher relationships, librarian qualifications and training, collection-development standards, and distributor influence. Staff will return next month with a proposed timeline for the audit.
