Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Library Security topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Library advisory board debates police presence after recent incidents
Summary
Advisory board members clashed over a new on-site police officer scheduled about 20 hours per week after staff reported recent threatening incidents in the library, including one involving a knife; members asked for clearer decision process, training for officers, and nonpolice alternatives.
Library staff told the advisory board that the city recently began placing a police officer at the public library on a roughly 20-hours-per-week schedule as a visible deterrent after multiple safety incidents. “On Monday, there was a man with a knife in the library,” the staff presenter said, and staff reported additional incidents earlier in the week.
The staff presenter said the officer’s posted times are approximately 3–8 p.m. Monday, Wednesday and Thursday, with Saturday coverage, and that Tuesday and Friday will have no security coverage. “Essentially, we’ll be at the library for 20 hours a week,” the presenter said, while noting the arrangement came after concerns that private security had been insufficient for some higher-level incidents.
Several board members said they strongly oppose stationing police inside the library. “I expressed at the council meeting my strong opposition to having police presence in the library,” the board chair said, arguing that police presence can be “antithetical to the openness and inclusivity that libraries are supposed to represent” and could deter undocumented patrons. Another member said alternatives such as community-based mental‑health outreach should be considered.
Staff responded that the officer placement is budgeted as a line item and is not expected to reduce collection development or programs. Staff also said the city will monitor billing and scheduling issues associated with the new arrangement and that the goal is for patrols to become regular and for the visible presence to deter further incidents.
Board members pressed for more information about how the decision was made and whether assigned officers receive de‑escalation and mental‑health crisis training. A board member asked if police assigned to the library are trained to respond to mental‑health crises; staff said the library provides an orientation about expectations but did not describe a specific training curriculum for officers.
Several members urged that the advisory board be included earlier in such operational decisions and asked staff to explore lower‑intensity alternatives (for example, community responder programs or expanded private security with different authorities) before placing officers in the building. The board asked staff to return with more details about decision authority, training for officers, and any budget implications.
The board closed the discussion by requesting that the city clerks attend the next meeting so the board can review the relevant education code requirements and the processes for administrative decisions. The board’s next meeting was confirmed for March 5 at 5:30 p.m.
