Pine-Richland school directors in a heated meeting Thursday night spent nearly seven hours tediously reworking a controversial library book policy that has been under scrutiny since 14 books deemed inappropriate by some were challenged in fall 2023.
The joint governance meeting, which at times devolved into shouting matches between more than 50 residents and board members calling for order, focused on changes to Policy 109.1. The policy lays out how library books are selected as well as the process to challenge books.
Proposed changes completely overhaul the policy as it currently reads, with the goal of providing more parental oversight while adding language such as “explicit sexual content.” It also gives the board more control over the selection process and final determinations of challenged books if an appeal takes place.
But emotions ran high. Many residents were aggravated by changes being discussed. Calls to not ban books echoed through the Richland Elementary School auditorium. School directors became increasingly frustrated with the meeting process, which gave limited time for the board, administration and librarians to speak on the proposed changes.
“I’m not going to ask a question because I realize you cowards can’t answer questions. ... It is disturbing for our whole community,” director Amy Terchick told fellow board members after questions raised by administration went unanswered. “I see you have supporters that you’ve invited to be here tonight and I hope they see what cowards you are up here, that you can’t talk about these things. If you feel that strongly about it, open your mouth and say why this is so important.”
Ms. Terchick left after three and a half hours, saying she was getting a migraine.
Thursday’s meeting was a continuation of conversations that have been ongoing since October 2023 when a group of residents pleaded with school directors to remove books from school libraries they deemed to be sexually explicit and obscene.
At the time 14 books in the middle and high school library were challenged, launching a review of the novels as laid out in the policy. A 10-person committee of community members and district staff was compiled, which read the books in their entirety. Following the review, Superintendent Brian Miller in April said the books could remain in libraries.
Afterwards, directors said they planned to tweak language in the policy.
But on Thursday, directors undertook the tedious process of revising the policy as a whole based on recommendations district Solicitor Matthew Hoffman made to a redlined version of the document, meaning they went section by section approving changes.
Major modifications largely focused on reconsideration of library materials, acquisition and opportunity for parental review.
Book challenges
Under the document, if a community member asks for a book to be removed from the school library, the superintendent will review the request and challenged materials to see if it conforms to the policy. The complainant will be informed of a decision. They will then have 21 days to appeal the determination to the board president.
The board will then determine if the challenged materials can remain in the library. Materials that withstand the challenge process can not be reconsidered again for another five years.
But the changes would remove the committee made up of community and staff members, something that frustrated director Ashley Fortier who said the community process should be celebrated, noting that 329 residents had been interested in joining the committee that reviewed challenged books last year.
Director Michael Wiethorn said the community voted for the board, so “the authority for these decisions is vested in the board.”
Acquisitions
For acquisitions, librarians under the changes will provide their building principals with a list of new materials recommended for purchase on a monthly basis. After the principal’s review, the list will be made public for 30 days prior to the superintendent’s final approval. As things currently stand, the list is posted publicly as librarians begin the purchase process, giving residents time to review the list before books and materials are put on library shelves.
The change sparked concerns over the timeline of getting new books in the library. At one point Ms. Fortier suggested dropping the wait period to seven days rather than 30 after hearing concerns about equity and access from librarians and administrators.
That motion ultimately failed, keeping it at 30 days.
Parental review
The board also moved forward with a new section for parental review. It would permit parents to direct librarians not to assign or allow their child to check out certain materials.
But language was added saying that those materials not be “otherwise made available” to those students whose parents have concerns, something librarians and administrators said could happen if the child obtains the book from another student or pulls it off the shelf when an adult is otherwise occupied.
“If a student has it in their mind that they’re going to disobey their parent and/or try to find a way around something, it might happen,” Mr. Miller said. “The librarians are not saying they don’t do their best … but they can’t 100% guarantee that something’s not going to happen.”
Despite the concerns, the language moved forward in the draft.
Other issues were raised around definitions for classic literature and classic art, with many feeling it excluded contemporary books and “instant classics.” Mr. Miller also pointed to language such as nudity, suggesting it could exclude books such as “Captain Underpants,” which has a bare-chested main character. He said to ensure practical implementation of the policy, those words would need to be defined to help guide staff.
Directors at the end of the meeting voted to report the revised policy back to the board.
But community members remained at odds with each other throughout the meeting. A small group of residents in favor of policy changes sometimes made comments about how they didn’t trust school librarians and suggested the review process for the 14 books failed.
Resident Cindy Vogel said she was there to represent parents who want to guard and guide children in emotional, mental and spiritual health.
“We have elected school board members to protect the wellbeing of our children so that they can learn how not to only develop and prosper individually but to contribute to a community that’s safe and productive,” said Ms. Vogel, who then read scripture verses.
But student Elise Duckworth countered those pushing for the policy changes. Elise, a 17-year-old junior, was permitted to speak partway through the meeting following several failed attempts to allow student voices to be heard given the lateness of the meeting.
“This board cannot keep reality from being real with this policy,” Elise said. “The students know what’s really happening here and in the world around us.”
First Published: January 10, 2025, 4:40 p.m.
Updated: January 11, 2025, 2:45 a.m.
