Showing posts with label Library Bill of Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Library Bill of Rights. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 2, 2026

A New Way ALA Misleads Parents: The National Trainer Who Wrote as the Local Director

Peter Bromberg:
EveryLibrary Board of Directors
Director of the SCLSNJ
This is another method by which the American Library Association (ALA) and its political partner EveryLibrary mislead parents and elected officials. It is not a false job title. It is a national advocacy officer, trained to switch language by audience, writing as if he were only the county library director. Further, he uses his own technique to manipulate the public in an effort to excuse local librarians for promoting Chicago ALA's own political goals that harm children.

On Sept. 1, 2026, New Jersey Hills published an opinion column by Peter Bromberg, identified only as director of the Somerset County Library System of New Jersey (SCLSNJ). The piece is titled “‘Liberty for All:’ Public Libraries and the Promise of America.” It quotes Ronald Reagan and James Madison. It calls libraries “strong supporters of parents and families.” It says libraries “curate age-appropriate zones and displays.” It tells readers that if a title offends, they are “free to reach for something else.”1

That is the local byline. It is not the whole record.

Bromberg became SCLSNJ director on Aug. 1, 2025. For the four years immediately before that he was Associate Director of EveryLibrary, the national 501(c)(4) that organizes against book challenges and trains library boards in political messaging. On May 30, 2025, announcing the Somerset job, he wrote that he looked forward to “continued service on the EveryLibrary Board of Directors.” EveryLibrary’s board page still lists him. His own résumé lists the associate-director post as May 2021–June 2025 and the board seat as 2014–present. When SCLSNJ hired him, MyCentralJersey reported the EveryLibrary job. The system’s official staff bio does not. Neither did the column.2

EveryLibrary is not a book club. It is the national political-action shop for libraries. Its companion 501(c)(3), the EveryLibrary Institute, publishes training for the same fight. Bromberg was the named presenter for the Institute’s webinar “Advocacy in a Polarized World,” that teaches Arnold Kling’s Three Languages of Politics and how to “intentionally use language” across the spectrum. In 2021 he gave the Utah Library Association the talk “Advocating Effectively Across the Political Spectrum.” In September 2023 Niche Academy listed him, then still with EveryLibrary, on a webinar that walked the same framework and a “27-9-3” message formula: 27 words, 9 seconds, three points, mapped to the audience.3

The worksheet for that method is not a rumor. A 2023 EveryLibrary Institute handout, Library Board Policy and Messaging Playbook, includes a page headed “The Three Languages of Politics,” filed under “Intellectual Freedom and Book Challenges.” The page tells staff that progressives, libertarians, and conservatives each have a default moral language, then gives the assignment:

  • Progressives: frame the library in “equity, social justice, a leveling of the playing field… and equal treatment for all.”
  • Libertarians: frame it in “liberty, self-determination, and support for those that are motivated to help themselves.”
  • Conservatives: frame it in “preservation of tradition, local community history, help with assimilating new arrivals, and traditional American values.”4

A related EveryLibrary presentation the same spring supplied fill-in sentences for the conservative ear: the Constitution, the First Amendment, Freedom of Religion, the Founding Fathers, and “We don’t want to chip away at the Constitution.” Another line: “We should never usurp the role of parents.”5

Read the Somerset column against that page. Bromberg did not write in the progressive dialect. He wrote in the other two.

  • “Freedom. Liberty. Justice. For all.”
  • “Self-determination, intellectual freedom, and liberty for all.”
  • “Forge our own destinies without government overreach.”
  • USA250. Reagan. Carnegie. Roosevelt. Madison.
  • America versus “authoritarian regimes where state officials strictly dictate what citizens read, think, and believe.”
  • “Strong supporters of parents and families.”
  • “The parent’s role to set and enforce boundaries.”
  • “Family values.”
  • If a book offends, “we are free to reach for something else.”

That is the conservative and libertarian tip list, aimed at a Somerset Hills paper, in the same week the same paper group was covering a Pride-program petition and a local official urging towns to question library programs.6

The column never quotes the rule the script is built to protect.

Article V of the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights says a person’s right to use a library “should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.” ALA’s official interpretation, “Access to Library Resources and Services for Minors,” is plainer: the right to use a library means “free access to all services, materials, and facilities and unrestricted use of everything the library offers.” Restrictions based solely on age, apparent maturity, educational level, or legal status “violate Article V.” ALA “opposes any efforts to restrict access based on age.”7

A children’s room is furniture. Under that interpretation it is not a lock. “Age-appropriate zones and displays” is what the playbook would call conservative language. “Unrestricted use of everything the library offers” is the written professional rule. Only one of those sentences appeared in the newspaper.

Parents and elected officials are the intended audience for the first sentence. They are not told about the second. They are also not told that the author spent four years as the national group’s associate director, remains on its board, and taught librarians how to switch dialects by audience so the access policy still wins.

Using different words for different listeners is ordinary rhetoric. Hospitals do it. Campaigns do it. The problem is the combination: a national advocacy officer, writing as a local director, in a live materials fight, in the dialect his shop published for conservatives, while leaving the shop and the age rule off the page.

The authorities the column skipped are the ones that actually speak to minors. In United States v. American Library Association (2003), Justice Kennedy wrote that “the interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree.” President Eisenhower, at Dartmouth in 1953, told students not to join the book burners, then added the clause library essays usually drop and ALA's own 2025 movie "The Librarians" actually dropped: use the library “as long as that document does not offend our own ideas of decency. That should be the only censorship.”8

Madison on knowledge is not an answer to age. The playbook does not ask directors to answer age. It asks them to talk liberty and family until the question of age goes away.

Somerset County’s Library Commission sets policy for SCLSNJ. It can ask its director, in public, three questions that do not require a theory of anyone’s soul:

  1. Does SCLSNJ adopt ALA’s Library Bill of Rights and the Minors interpretation as collection policy?
  2. If a parent asks that a child’s card not check out adult or s[*]xually explicit titles, will the system honor that limit?
  3. Why did a column on “liberty for all,” published during a local program fight, omit the author’s EveryLibrary board seat and the Institute’s published conservative-language tips?

Those are records questions. The playbook page, the résumé, the LinkedIn post, and the byline are already public. The only thing missing from the newspaper was the second half of the sentence.

Parents who only read the byline were not given the shop, the script, or the age rule. That omission is the method. 

So this is a new way ALA misleads parents and politicians: 1) the national trainer who wrote as the local director to 2) attempt to manipulate local people into affirming Chicago ALA’s anything-goes for children policies, 3) using the very means by which he trains people to manipulate others.


The Three Languages of Politics


Notes:

1. Peter Bromberg, “‘Liberty for All:’ Public Libraries and the Promise of America,” New Jersey Hills / Bernardsville News, Sept. 1, 2026, https://www.newjerseyhills.com/bernardsville_news/opinion/columns/liberty-for-all-public-libraries-and-the-promise-of-america/article_0cc5e4e4-ff48-44d3-a095-fbf5befe4dc5.html.

2. Somerset County Library System of New Jersey, “Peter J. Bromberg,” staff biography, https://sclsnj.org/about-us/staff/peter-bromberg; Peter Bromberg, résumé, https://peterbromberg.com/resume/; Peter Bromberg, LinkedIn post, May 30, 2025, https://www.linkedin.com/posts/peterjbromberg_after-nearly-4-years-at-everylibrary-i-activity-7334307222258143233-Vt7C; EveryLibrary, “Board of Directors,” https://www.everylibrary.org/board-directors; Cheryl Makin, “Somerset County Library System has a new director,” MyCentralJersey.com, June 30, 2025, https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/local/2025/06/30/somerset-county-library-system-has-a-new-director/84259228007/.

3. EveryLibrary Institute, “FREE WEBINAR: Advocacy in a polarized world,” presenter Peter Bromberg, Associate Director, EveryLibrary, https://www.everylibraryinstitute.org/advocacyinpolarizedworld; Peter Bromberg, “Advocating Effectively Across the Political Spectrum,” Utah Library Association Annual Conference, May 21, 2021; Peter Bromberg, “Future-Proofing the Library,” Niche Academy webinar, Sept. 6, 2023, https://www.nicheacademy.com/hubfs/Future-Proof%20Your%20Library%20(Niche%202023)%20(1).pdf. Bromberg’s résumé also lists the NJLA Public Policy Forum keynote “Libraries are Political (And So Can You!),” Livingston, N.J., Nov. 14, 2025.

4. EveryLibrary Institute, Library Board Policy and Messaging Playbook (file dated April 1, 2023), p. 4, “The Three Languages of Politics,” circulating as https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hvATAuYlYrTv7rHfEDNr7bz2qb8BEWjB/view. Parallel text appears in “Real World Policy and Messaging,” June 2023, Wisconsin Public Library Consortium packet, https://www.wplc.org/files/5a115d098/Real-world-policy-and-messaging-June-2023.pdf. Arnold Kling, The Three Languages of Politics (Cato Institute).

5. John Chrastka, EveryLibrary, “Answering Censorship Challenges: EveryLibrary’s Fight for the First Initiative,” Towson University, April 27, 2023, https://towson.libguides.com/ld.php?content_id=71758347 (conservative sample: Constitution, Founding Fathers, “We don’t want to chip away at the Constitution”; “We should never usurp the role of parents”).

6. New Jersey Hills package teaser published with the Bromberg column: “Pride v. Prejudice? Petition to Keep County Library Branch Starts as Sweeney Urges Other Towns to Question Programs.” Peapack-Gladstone is a SCLSNJ member community.

7. American Library Association, Library Bill of Rights, Art. V, https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill (“age” included 1967; reaffirmed 1996); ALA, “Access to Library Resources and Services for Minors: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights,” https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations/minors.

8. United States v. American Library Ass’n, 539 U.S. 194, 215 (2003) (Kennedy, J., concurring); Dwight D. Eisenhower, commencement address, Dartmouth College, June 14, 1953.



Opinion for Publication Submitted to Editor September 1, 2026:

New Jersey Hills:

Peter Bromberg’s Sept. 1 column, “‘Liberty for All:’ Public Libraries and the Promise of America,” identifies him only as director of the Somerset County Library System. That title is true. It is not the whole identification.

From May 2021 until June 2025, Mr. Bromberg was Associate Director of EveryLibrary, the national 501(c)(4) that organizes against book challenges and trains library boards in political messaging. On May 30, 2025, announcing the Somerset job, he wrote that he looked forward to “continued service on the EveryLibrary Board of Directors.” EveryLibrary’s board page still lists him. His résumé lists that board seat from 2014 to the present. MyCentralJersey reported the EveryLibrary post when he was hired. The system’s staff biography does not mention it. Neither did the column.

EveryLibrary Institute published the method. A 2023 handout, Library Board Policy and Messaging Playbook, includes a page headed “The Three Languages of Politics,” filed under "Intellectual Freedom and Book Challenges.” It tells staff that progressives, libertarians, and conservatives each have a default language, then assigns the frame:

Progressives: “equity, social justice, a leveling of the playing field… and equal treatment for all.”  
Libertarians: “liberty, self-determination, and support for those that are motivated to help themselves.”  
Conservatives: “preservation of tradition, local community history, help with assimilating new arrivals, and traditional American values.”

A related EveryLibrary presentation the same year supplied conservative sample copy: the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, Freedom of Religion, and “We don’t want to chip away at the Constitution.” Another line: “We should never usurp the role of parents.”

Mr. Bromberg’s column is written in the conservative and libertarian dialects. Reagan. Madison. The Constitution versus “authoritarian regimes.” “Freedom. Liberty. Justice. For all.” “Self-determination.” “Strong supporters of parents and families.” “Family values.” If a title offends, “we are free to reach for something else.” It is not written in the progressive dialect. It was published as the same paper group covered a petition and a local official urging towns to question library programs.

The column never quotes the rule that script is written to protect. Article V of the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights says a person’s right to use a library “should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.” ALA’s official interpretation, “Access to Library Resources and Services for Minors,” states that this right means “free access to all services, materials, and facilities and unrestricted use of everything the library offers,” and that limits based solely on age, apparent maturity, or legal status “violate Article V.” A children’s room is furniture. Under that interpretation it is not a lock.

“Age-appropriate zones and displays” is what the playbook would call language for a conservative paper. “Unrestricted use of everything the library offers” is the professional text. Only the first sentence ran.

Using different words for different listeners is ordinary rhetoric. The problem is the combination: a national advocacy officer, writing as a local director, during a local materials fight, in the dialect his shop published for conservatives, while leaving the shop and the age rule off the page.

The authorities that actually address minors were also left off. In United States v. American Library Association (2003), Justice Kennedy wrote that “the interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree.” President Eisenhower, at Dartmouth in 1953, warned against book burners then added the clause usually dropped: use the library “as long as that document does not offend our own ideas of decency.”

The Somerset County Library Commission sets policy. It can ask, in public, whether SCLSNJ adopts the ALA Minors interpretation; whether a parent may limit a child’s card; and why an EveryLibrary board seat was omitted from a column on “liberty for all.” Those are records questions. The playbook page, the résumé, and the byline are already public.

Dan Kleinman  
Chatham, N.J.


NOTE ADDED 2 SEPTEMBER 2026:

Tonight I spoke at the commission meeting wherein Peter Bromberg is a member. He was there. So I confronted ALA head on. You see, people, it's not that hard. I've done it before. Don't be intimidated by them.

Here is what I said, along with other graphics showing the extent of the problem. It's my own recording as the commission makes no recordings.


—
URL of this page: 

safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/09/a-new-way-ala-misleads-parents.html

Follow Protect Salado Kids on X:

Follow Kelly on X:

Follow Dan on X:




Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: 1 Vogt Dr, Bridgewater, NJ 08807, USA

Saturday, August 22, 2026

Librarians Finally Admit the Reviews They Hide Behind Are Useless

School librarians have spent years telling parents, school boards, and courts that every book in the collection was carefully selected using professional reviews. That claim has been the standard defense. “We follow the selection policy. The books have multiple positive reviews from School Library Journal, Kirkus, Booklist…”

It was also the shield used against parents who dared to object to s[*]xually explicit material in school libraries. Challenge a book? You’re told the professionals already reviewed it. Object too loudly? You risk being labeled a book banner, a bigot, or worse—and in multiple cases sued.

Now the librarians themselves are admitting, in their own research and on their own podcast, that those reviews cannot be trusted.  Audio, transcript, and journal article available below.

In a 2026 study published by the American Association of School Librarians (AASL, a division of the American Library Association), Books and Barriers: The Influence of Book Censorship on the Role of School Librarians, Their Self-Efficacy, and Well-Being, researchers Misty S. Schattle and Johnny R. O’Connor, Jr. interviewed eleven school librarians in one large Texas district. The librarians reported that collection development now takes far longer because:
“they often feel that the reviews cannot be trusted, requiring the need to read books in their entirety before placement on the shelf.”¹
One elementary librarian put it bluntly:  
“It’s almost like we can’t go on our reviews. I’ve been reading a lot more books.”¹
Dr. Schattle expanded on these findings on the School Librarians United podcast:
“lots of librarians that I talk to were saying that they couldn’t really rely on reviews anymore because… they read a review, but are they gonna get something that is questionable… so they might still find that they needed to read it before it could go on the shelf… they’re just finding that it’s taking so much time… because now you have to read all the books.”²
This is not new. I documented the same problem more than a decade ago.

In 2010, Kalida, Ohio Superintendent Don Horstman removed Lush by Natasha Friend after a fifth grader brought it home. The book contained graphic s[*]xual details. Horstman read it himself and said the glowing professional reviews had omitted those details entirely.³ Similar patterns appear in my 2011 post on incomplete reviews⁴ and my 2009 post on a Kentucky superintendent overriding ALA lists.⁵

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick has been even more direct. In August 2026 remarks, he stated that the librarians are the ones responsible for the presence of “dirty, filthy, and vulgar books” in school libraries, that they know what is on the shelves while many superintendents and teachers do not, and that the American Library Association trains librarians and considers such material “just fine.”¹⁰

Librarians themselves have used the same defense when suing parents. Amanda Jones, who filed a high-profile lawsuit against parents who criticized materials in her library, has stated: “As a professional librarian, I use professional reviews about where we place books in the library.”¹¹ Her justification for the books she selects rests on the very reviewing sources that Schattle’s research and the librarians she interviewed now say cannot be trusted to flag “something that is questionable.”

Meanwhile, the American Library Association itself continues to elevate those same professional reviews. Through its Unite Against Book Bans campaign, ALA created “Book Résumés”—documents packed with awards and glowing professional reviews, designed to be handed to boards and review committees.⁶ The résumé for Gender Queer is a perfect example: starred reviews from Booklist and School Library Journal, YALSA and Rainbow Project lists, the Alex Award, and more. What it carefully omits is any actual content from the book.⁷

At the same time, ALA’s official policy forbids the rating systems that do document content.

The 11th edition of ALA’s Intellectual Freedom Manual (2026) is explicit. On page 8 it notes that school boards and lawmakers use ratings produced by “religious and political groups” to limit access to library books and control what is added to school libraries. Chapter 7 contains an entire section on rating systems and states:
“Using, enforcing, or approving of ratings systems violates the Library Bill of Rights.”
It further warns that rating or labeling materials based on assumed age-appropriateness “may be perceived as restricting access.”⁸

On page 145 the Manual specifically addresses the sites parents actually use:
“websites like BookLooks.org and RatedBooks.org often use legal-sounding language to falsely imply that certain books that do not comply with their moral or religious beliefs are illegal and ‘harmful to minors.’ … Their claims are false and have no basis in law. Libraries should not use ratings from these sites to justify removing books from their collections, limiting access to library resources, or making decisions about what books to purchase for library collections. … publicly funded libraries should not use private content rating systems to restrict access to materials. This policy should apply to all users, including children and young adults.”⁸
Kelly Jensen at Book Riot has likewise dismissed BookLooks, RatedBooks, and similar sites as “unprofessional, biased book reviews” and “politically-driven.”⁹ Tools such as RatedBooks and the National Book Rating Index (NBRI) that actually catalog explicit content are rejected, while the professional reviews that leave librarians unsure whether a book contains “something that is questionable” remain the approved standard—until parents notice the problem, at which point the response is often a lawsuit.

So the position is now fully circular:
  • The professional reviews ALA has long promoted as the gold standard for selection and defense of books are admitted by ALA’s own researchers (in an AASL journal) to be inadequate. Librarians say they can no longer rely on them and must read the books themselves.
  • The rating systems that actually describe s[*]xual content, language, and other details are denounced by ALA as illegitimate tools of “religious and political groups.” Using them violates the Library Bill of Rights.
  • ALA’s Book Résumés lean on the same professional reviews while omitting the content those reviews fail to flag.
  • When parents point out the resulting problems, some librarians sue them for defamation while continuing to cite the very reviews now acknowledged as unreliable.
Either the approved reviews work, or they don’t. If they don’t—as Schattle’s study and the librarians themselves now say—then the tools that do provide useful information about content are the ones ALA explicitly forbids, precisely because those tools can be used to keep inappropriate material away from children.

I spoke with Brooke Stephens, founder of RatedBooks.org and the National Book Rating Index (NationalBookRatingIndex.com). RatedBooks creates reports based on a content rating scale that uses the book’s own excerpts to justify each rating. The National Book Rating Index aggregates nearly 38,000 reviews from multiple sources and can be searched for free or used by librarians to process entire library inventories and generate rating reports on matched titles. The more the ALA defends giving mature content to minors while declaring professional reviews inadequate and parent-created rating tools illegitimate, the more obvious the need for these resources becomes. Stephens is both amused and grateful for the free publicity the ALA has given her work. She sees their rejection of transparent content rating systems as further diminishing any remaining need for the organization itself.

Parents who challenged books and were attacked for it were right. The professional reviews were never the rigorous safeguard claimed. They were a convenient shield. ALA still promotes that shield through Book Résumés and selection policies while simultaneously declaring the more accurate content ratings off-limits and supporting legal action against those who notice the gap.

The result is predictable: children retain access to material that even the librarians selecting it now say they cannot trust the reviews to identify—and, as Lt. Gov. Patrick noted, the librarians are the ones who know what is on those shelves.

NOTE ADDED 23 August 2026:

This article will have a followup article about teachers who truly are trusted experts and who truly care for teaching children, instead of indoctrinating them, like the requirements American Library Association added to all the various state Freedom to Read Acts and Right to Read Acts.  These teachers who truly care were directly vilified by American Library Association and its librarians, such as by Amanda Jones who is suing me for defamation calling one of them "a menace and a bully."  The only menace is to ALA as people wake up and realize the emperor has no clothes, something that Misty S. Schattle described in detail when we learned librarians have to read all the books for themselves.  Then when teachers do read all the books for themselves and decide some books are inappropriate for schools, they are vilified and sued, such as by PEN America, a partner with ALA in "Unite Against Book Bans."  So stay tuned for the upcoming post.

Endnotes:


1. Misty S. Schattle & Johnny R. O’Connor, Jr., “Books and Barriers: The Influence of Book Censorship on the Role of School Librarians, Their Self-Efficacy, and Well-Being,” School Library Research 29 (2026), https://www.ala.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/schattleandoconnor.pdf.

2. Dr. Misty Schattle, “Censorship’s Impact on School Librarians and their Libraries,” School Librarians United with Amy Hermon, Episode 372, August 21, 2026, https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/censorships-impact-on-school-librarians-and-their/id1434321470?i=1000784807311.

3. “School Excoriates Book Reviews that Fail to Disclose ‘Graphic S[*]xual Details’ in Books for Children; Lush by Natasha Friend is ‘Wildly Inappropriate’ for Certain Children,” SafeLibraries, December 16, 2010, https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2010/12/school-excoriates-book-reviews-that.html.

4. “False Censorship Claims Exposed by WSJ Author Attacked for Exposing Truth About Young Adult Books; Meghan Cox Gurdon Decries Incomplete and Uninformative Book Reviews,” SafeLibraries, June 8, 2011, https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2011/06/false-censorship-claims-exposed-by-wsj.html.

5. “Kentucky School Superintendent Exposes False Cries of Censorship; Removes Educationally Unsuitable Books from Curriculum Despite Being on ALA’s List for Reluctant Readers,” SafeLibraries, November 30, 2009, https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2009/11/kentucky-school-superintendent-exposes.html.

6. Unite Against Book Bans (American Library Association initiative), Book Résumés, https://bookresumes.uniteagainstbookbans.org/.

7. Book Résumé for Gender Queer: A Memoir by Maia Kobabe, Unite Against Book Bans / ALA, https://bookresumes.uniteagainstbookbans.org/wp-content/uploads/kobabe_GenderQueer_20240214.pdf.

8. American Library Association, Intellectual Freedom Manual, 11th ed. (ALA Editions, 2026), pp. 8, 145 (and Chapter 7 on rating systems). See also ALA’s related “Labeling and Rating Systems: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights.”

9. Kelly Jensen, “BookLooks, RatedBooks, and Other Unprofessional Book ‘Review’ Sites to Know: Book Censorship News, January 10, 2025,” Book Riot, January 10, 2025, https://bookriot.com/booklooks-ratedbooks-and-other-unprofessional-book-review-sites/.

10. “Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick Opposes Explicit Books In Schools, Pleas for Parents to Act to Get These Books Removed, Calls Out School Librarians,” SafeLibraries, August 20, 2026, https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/08/texas-lt-gov-dan-patrick-opposes.html (quoting Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s remarks holding school librarians responsible for the presence of explicit materials and noting ALA’s role in training them).

11. Maggie Heyn Richardson, “Livingston Parish’s Amanda Jones landed in a national fight about book banning. Now, ‘That Librarian’ Has Written a Memoir,” 225 Magazine, August 8, 2024, https://www.225batonrouge.com/our-city/livingston-parishs-amanda-jones-landed-national-fight-book-banning-now-librarian-written-memoir (quoting Amanda Jones: “As a professional librarian, I use professional reviews about where we place books in the library.”).


Hear the Admission:


Listen to the librarians themselves discussing how professional reviews can no longer be trusted, followed by a transcript of what they said:



Transcript:


Amy Hermon:
[Y]ou know, these attacks on their collections were happening. 

Dr. Misty Schattle:
So what I found, and you have to keep in mind, this was a, this was, very much a small group of people. They were eleven librarians that I spoke with from one district, so you're talking about a very tiny population. But, they all found that their collection development processes were taking far longer than they ever had before. So, they, you know, we, we, all, as librarians, we, we read reviews, that's what we do, because unfortunately, as much as we would love to, we cannot read every book, there's just way too many out there. But I was finding that, that lots of librarians that I talk to were saying that they couldn't really rely on reviews anymore because, you know, they didn't know, were they going, you know, they read a review, but are they gonna get something that is questionable, um, you know, like, and then so they would, they might read a review and they might get something but then they might still find that they needed to read it before it could go on the shelf, or maybe they were going to public libraries and trying to find books so they could read them before they bought them. But then, you know, they're, they're still like, they're just finding that it's taking so much time, so much time that they don't have, right? And collection development, it's, it's a lengthy process anyway. Right? I mean well, maybe not, if you don't have much money to spend it don't take much time. But, if you, if you have a decent budget, you know, I, I, I don't know a single school librarian anywhere that's been like, "well, I had all this money to spend, so I was just buying whatever." I mean, nobody does that.

Amy Hermon:
Uhhh, (laughter) I, I was gonna say, back in the, uh, the ESSER days when we had ESSER funds, uh, after the pandemic, ah, there was something that I was aware was never gonna happen again in my career, but it involved a, a very small window of time and spending an amount of money that I could, could barely believe this was actually happening, it was like winning the lotto or something. But um, no, but I, I think that especially when you talk to people for whom they are not rookie librarians, these are not rookie librarians, you're dealing with people who are, in some cases, seasoned, they are veterans, they, they, this is not their first rodeo. They have built a collection repeatedly and you'd like to think that at some point you get better at this, and and you start to trust your, um, your judgment as a professional, and the longer you do this, in. The hope is that you become more confident in the decisions that you're making and you're not second-guessing yourself. But when somebody calls into question what you're doing, all of a sudden that hyper scrutiny that, that is imposed on, on the collection that we're building, this becomes an absolute, colossal, e-, e-, expensive time that we have to, to use, just to satisfy, uh, community members who have made it their life's mission to upend whatever sense of normalcy we have in our spaces.

Dr. Misty Schattle:
Yeah. It, it's just, you know, it's just crazy to me, like, I don't know. We have these degrees and, you know, we, we want to do our job, but sometimes it, it's hard, just finding the time to, to do all of the, the reading of, you know, all the books, because now you have to read all the books.

Amy Hermon:
So, I regularly hear from school librarians that there aren't enough hours in the day to do our jobs. We arrive before school early, we work through  lunch, we stay late. I'm already aware that there are, uh, a number of us who have extended calendars where we have built in days where we are working either, ah, before the school year starts or well into, uh, after the school year ends. Our professional training, our judgment, apparently isn't good enough when it comes to selecting the books that we oversee. And it's just, it's not just insulting, the burden that we now have to satisfy, uh, uh, somebody's expectations of, of how we are, are, you know, supposed to be doing our jobs.

Dr. Misty Schattle:
Yeah. I think it definitely makes that harder, because, like you said, we have training for this, we go to school to, to learn how to develop collections, and, you know, I, I'm sure you did as I did took classes on collection development, but not just that, I took children's literature, I took young adult literature. I mean, I enjoyed them. Honestly I was exposed to books I probably would've never picked up on my own. And I know, like, even now looking back, looking back at those classes, I can still, you know, recall some of those books that I read in those classes back in 2007. I can say, you know like, I know that I've put specific books that I read because of those classes in specific children's hands, because that was what they needed at that moment. I've always said that my most favorite part of my job as a school librarian was connecting kids with that just-right book for them. With that book that they didn't know they needed, but they needed.

Amy Hermon:
At Wayne State University, we had to pick two of the three categories, so we had, there was a young adult course, a middle grade course, and a, ah, children's, ah, literature. And these were actually the three classes that overlapped with our School of Education. And, so that was really interesting. And I'll never forget, it was the, you know, the, the assignment was legend, it was the hundred book project. And the hundred book project, the expectation was is that we would familiarize ourselves with a hundred books during the semester and write up synopses and, and all sorts of, ah, write ups and, and critical reviews, and, and, you know, we thought it absolutely daunting at the time, but now that I think about it, it was ay, some of the most memorable activities I did and I really, really enjoyed it.

Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: 225 N Michigan Ave #1300, Chicago, IL 60601, USA

Thursday, May 14, 2026

Seeing through the Smoke and Mirrors from the ALA

​

Adult books are available to children of all ages in public libraries

Abortion, alcohol/abuse, alternate gender/sexual ideologies, animal cruelty/neglect (severe), anxiety, assassinations, bestiality, BDSM, body horror, blackmail, cannibalism (themes/threats), controversial commentary, cults and ideological zealots, dark content, deception, derogatory terms, demonic content, depression, divination, drugs/drugging, erotica, explicit sexual activities/nudity,  fetishism, gore, inflammatory commentary,  incest (themes), mental illness, molestation, murder, necrophilia (themes), patently offensive content, paraphilias, pedophilia, Pervasively Vulgar content,  profanity (multiple languages), prurient content, prostitution, rape, Satan worship (themes), self-harm, sex trafficking, smoking, stalking, suicide ideation, theft, torture, violence and Voyeurism. (This is a topic summary in Gravity's Rainbow by Thomas Pynchon). 

That's quite a list.  

And yet, thousands of public libraries can't find one single reason to keep a book with all of these adult topics out of the hands of children. There are tens of thousands of sexually explicit books and materials with no limits, restrictions, guidelines, or protections of any sort,  available to children all across the United States. The public library and school policy of open access to all materials to all ages has repeatedly exposed children to content that would be considered obscene and illegal in any other setting.  

Who came up with that policy?

The American Library Association has manufactured reasons to override parents and give kids of all ages access to adult books in any format, digital and hard copy. All children, all ages, all access, all the time…that’s the policy whether you like it or not.

To do anything else would be Censorship!                             Book Banning!

Okay, that's not true...

The Supreme Court weighed in with Ginsberg v. New York (1968) and decided that children are NOT entitled to view sexually explicit materials under the Constitution and that "obscenity is variable", which means the content doesn't have to be obscene for adults in order to be obscene for children. Kansas Law (21-6401 and 21-6402) states that adults are prohibited from exposing children to obscene materials, and that obscenity is to be determined at least in part by community standards (not library policies) because minors lack the maturity to process explicit sexual content responsibly (Miller v. California 1973).

Restricting a sexually explicit book based on age in the library or school is not censorship.  Island Trees School District v. Pico (1982) decided that books can be removed from school library shelves without risk of censorship claims if the removal is due to vulgarity or unsuitability, and gives school boards broad discretion to do so with Constitutional protection. 

One more time for the people in the back...

The Supreme Court ruled that a book does not have to be obscene to an adult in order for it to be considered obscene for children. Schools and libraries cannot be forced to expose children to adult materials in the name of combating "censorship." The standards for children are, and should be different than the standards for adults. That's literally true in every other situation. Children are not adults, and should not be treated like they are. 

It is the duty of all adults in any setting to protect all children from exposure to anything that may harm them.

Even if the child is too young to read the words, they can look at the pictures of erect penises and teenaged boys in sexual positions. Kids who are little older, maybe by 3rd or 4th grade, can pick up on concepts like anal or oral sex.

Graphic illustrations placed where kids can see. Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe

Accidental and unsupervised exposure to mature content is much more dangerous than a controlled discussion with a parent. Many other librarians and schools refuse to protect children from that exposure. 

Thousands of libraries adhere to the American Library Association's policies that fight censorship where censorship does not exist at the expense of childhood innocence.   

Decades of research from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American Psychological Association (APA), the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds), the American Professional Society of the Abuse of Children (APSAC), the Society for Research in Child Development (SRCD), and the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP), shows that early sexualization of children is very damaging and can lead to depression, anxiety, anger, confusion, aggressive sexual behaviors, desensitization, low self-esteem, increased mental health crisis and increased risk of exploitation by adults due to normalization of sexual concepts by children too young to understand the consequences.

That's also quite a list. 

Ignore all of that, though, the American Library Association says that your child can see or read whatever they want, whenever they want as long as it's at the library or on school property. That's not a law, it's a library policy suggestion from a NGO with no accountability to anyone involved, but that's the lead most schools and libraries are following. 

The Library Bill of Rights says that "A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views." Adults, who are not the parents, use this policy to defend and justify giving materials to children in the library or at school that would be illegal if given to them at a gas station. The "Rights" in this Library Bill are granted by no one, and are legally unenforceable. 

And yet, librarians defend it as if it's the law of the land


Parents have the right and responsibility to oversee their child's upbringing, education and moral development. 

Children do not have the right to read and see whatever they want. 

Librarians do not have the right to expose children to potentially harmful materials under any circumstances. This practice is justified by policy, not law. 

If the Community Standards question the appropriateness of allowing a child to access any material, the librarian should err on the side of caution to protect the child. Librarians who expose children to potentially obscene materials are not constitutional champions even though the American Library Association directs them to "fight censorship." 

There are NO banned books in this country. 

Banning a book means that you can't legally get the book anywhere. If a book is banned, you can't buy it, borrow it, steal it, see it, possess it or read it. 

Book banning is not a thing in the United States.

Adults can get any book from a variety of sources any time. An adult can go into any library and get any book they want. Libraries cannot possibly be required to carry every title--if a book is not available in the library it does not mean it has been banned by any legal true definition.  

PEN America shows on its website that more than 23,000  "book bans" have been documented since 2021 in public schools across the country. The stats are misleading, however--"If the same book is banned in 10 school districts, that would count as 10 bans, but one unique title. A book ban is the removal or restriction of those materials, either permanently or under review (PEN.org). 

It is counted as a "book ban" if a sexually explicit book is moved out of the children's section to the adult section, even though adults are not restricted from access in any way.  The American Library Association and PEN America offers tools to librarians and library boards to fight "when the censors come." (PEN is referring to parents who object to adult materials being offered to their children.)  

What do you call the repeated and excessive use of words like "book banning" and labeling parents as "the censors" who are coming to violate the Constitution?  

Gaslighting. Fear mongering. Manipulation.

What's your problem? Are you a Nazi or something? 

Book banning is a phrase associated with Nazi Germany, and the fervent use of the phrase is intentional to evoke a connection between anyone who objects to childhood exposure to sexually explicit materials and that horrible time in world history. The claim of book banning insidiously weaponizes the fear of those events being repeated in order to get parents to give up their rights over their own children to avoid the comparison. 

Parents aren't Nazis just because they want to decide what their children see and read. Parents have the right to determine when their child is mature enough for the content, and the responsibility to protect their children as they see fit without interference from libraries and schools.  

The fact that the taxpayers buy the books, build the libraries, build the schools, pay the librarians, elect the boards, and fund the NGOs only to have those institutions and organizations band together to strip them of their rights and authority over their own children makes all of this truly insulting.  

Restricting children’s access to adult book titles doesn’t take anything away from parents who want their children to read sexually explicit books. A parent can go check out that book anytime they want to and let their children see it.

On the flipside of that, a parent who wants OTHER people’s children to be exposed to sexually explicit books has NO legal right or authority to do that. NONE. Libraries who fight to keep these policies that override parent rights ARE taking something away from parents—their rights to have knowledge of and to choose what their children are exposed to. 

Why do seemingly normal adults fight so hard to defend putting sexually graphic books in front of children?

Protests, parades, lawsuits, angry board meetings, hateful social media attacks, threats of violence, cancel culture, lectures and virtue signaling from board members and lawyers...WHY? 

Why do libraries CHOOSE to allow children to have access to adult materials when they don’t have to? What is the motivation behind overruling community objections to facilitate giving sexually explicit material to children that would be illegal in any other setting? It's regulatory displacement...materials that would violate regulatory guidelines and definitions outside of the building are protected inside the building based on location. 

It's still the same children inside and outside of the building.

NGOs like the American Library Association decide what hoops parents have to jump through to protect their own children while shielding the library from any responsibility to do so. Kansas law regarding definitions of obscenity are ignored because of location in the library. 

Library boards of directors choose (but are not required) to adhere to policies from the ALA, purporting that no materials are obscene and that children cannot be prevented (protected) from seeing any materials because it would violate their "Freedom to Read." The American Library Association developed a Freedom to Read policy which has no support from the law. It's a policy, suggested guidance, and means nothing in court. It's not enforceable. 


There is no Constitutional Freedom to Read for Children

The ALA Library Bill of Rights is not law. 

There are no banned books in the USA. 

Curation is not censorship. 

Adults have the right to Freedom of Speech, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Protecting children from sexually explicit materials does not infringe on any adult's First Amendment Rights in any way. 

Children's first amendment rights are limited and do not overrule the rights of their parents to exercise authority over their child's upbringing, moral development, and education.

Adults who are not the parents have no right to give a child sexually explicit materials using subjective decision making. 

Policy guidance from private non-governmental organizations cannot override state law. 

It requires the cooperation of complicit public institutions to undermine parents rights and sacrifice childhood innocence in the name of "fighting the good fight" against censorship. 

Ask your local librarian to defend sexually explicit materials in the children's section without using borrowed ALA policy language. 

I'll wait.












—
URL of this page: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/05/seeing-through-smoke-and-mirrors-from.html



Follow Protect Salado Kids on X:

Follow Kelly on X:

Follow Dan on X:



Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: 1201 Main St, Hays, KS 67601, USA

Tuesday, January 20, 2026

Policy Shell Game Hides Parents' Rights in Kansas Libraries

Just moving these books
to the adult section
won't matter, Sunflower eLibrary
lets kids download their own copy anytime.

Public libraries in Kansas shuffle policies with Sunflower eLibrary and trample Parents' Rights to object to s*xually explicit materials freely accessed by children in online accounts. 

The Kansas State Library Handbook (2020 edition, pp. 18–19) directs public libraries to maintain a clearly defined method for handling complaints about materials. The guidance recognizes that challenges may occur and requires the library board policy to oversee a formal reconsideration process, including meeting personally with the Director, submission of a written request, review by designated staff or a committee, and appeals to the governing board, which holds final decision authority.

The 2017 version of the Handbook stated that "the library director should explain that they are complying with the law’s requirements for consideration” (p. 19). 

Reconsideration is a procedural right...

The guidance did not change, however the 2020 version states “the library should explain to the complainant its materials selection policy, stating that the library board "subscribes" to the ALA (American Library Association) Freedom Statements (ALA Bill of Rights)  (p. 19). The ALA's Library Bill of Rights has no legal force, with the judge describing the statements as an "aspirational creed" rather than a binding legal standard. (Berry v. Yosemite Community College District, Case No. 1:18-cv-00172-LJO-SAB. (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2018). It is not a federal statute and the ALA has no authority in Kansas.  No identified cases show any ALA policies being upheld in court (or by libraries in litigation) specifically to deny reconsideration requests for shared digital items. Berry v. Yosemite Community College District limited the legal weight of the ALA Library Bill of Rights in court.

The Kansas State Library Handbook is weaker and less defensible by the recent changes made. Compliance with Kansas statues is required regardless of what inspired the language in the Handbook, which is produced with public funds and issued as governmental guidance to public libraries.

Children have unfiltered access to adult titles and parents can't object...

Sunflower eLibrary, a statewide consortium serving up to 150 Kansas public libraries, enforces a policy that categorically bars reconsideration of tens of thousands of shared digital materials stating, “Due to the nature of consortium or digital content, it is not possible for individual libraries to remove shared and/or content from the consortium. Individual libraries may remove content purchased under their Advantage accounts. Patrons wishing to challenge content need to submit a formal reconsideration request with each library that owns a copy of the title on the consortium, according to each library’s individual reconsideration policies and processes. Individual libraries who object to content shared by other libraries are encouraged to reconsider their participation in Sunflower eLibrary” (quoted from email dated January 9, 2026 from Hays Public Library Director).

The Hays Public Library adoption of this policy is even more restrictive, stating, “Due to the nature of consortium or digital collections, content on Sunflower eLibrary (Libby) cannot be reconsidered if it was purchased and shared by another library. Content on other online resources may also be ineligible for reconsideration depending on how the library subscribes to content on each online resource.”  As a result, patrons are denied any meaningful reconsideration process for all the materials that libraries make available through consortium access unless their local library owns the title.

There is no statutory, constitutional, or delegated authority under Kansas law that permits a library consortium to unconditionally bar reconsideration of shared digital materials, redirect reconsideration exclusively to an “owning” library, or preempt local library board authority under K.S.A. 12-1225 Powers and duties of board. This restriction contradicts the Kansas State Library Handbook (2020, pp. 18–19)) requirement that public libraries maintain a clear, accessible method for complaints about any material available via its catalog or credentials—no exceptions for shared digital items—and exceeds the consortium’s statutory authority.

Because participation in Sunflower eLibrary is conditioned on compliance with this policy, its adoption produces a uniform statewide practice among member libraries that essentially prevents patron reconsideration of shared digital content.

Enter the Consortium...

The Kansas Public Library Handbook lists no barriers to the formal reconsideration process. The process applies whenever a member of the public objects to any material available in the catalog. A library makes material "available" when it appears in the catalog, and can be borrowed, downloaded, or viewed with library credentials, or are presented as part of the collection. Kansas law attaches full reconsideration obligations at that point, with no statutory exemptions for vendors, consortium membership, awards, nor licensing terms. The Handbook makes no exceptions for digital materials, shared/consortium-purchased materials, nor ownership by another library.

The Sunflower eLibrary is not an independent legal entity but a voluntary cooperative consortium formed by member public libraries to share digital resources via OverDrive. It operates through administrative agreements coordinated by regional library systems. A consortium derives its authority solely from its member libraries and cannot acquire oversight authority nor override the legal requirements for compliance of those individual public institutions.

The consortium does not have the authority to ban reconsideration of library materials in any format, regardless of ownership, in conflict with the reconsideration policies and statutory requirements of participating library boards.

Libraries must break the law to stay in good standing as Sunflower eLibrary members...

By conditioning participation in the Sunflower eLibrary consortium on compliance with the terms that exceed its statutory authority, (eliminate meaningful reconsideration and skip over local library board governance), the consortium violates the State ultra vires doctrine. In Kansas, an act is ultra vires when a public body, board, or agency exercises power not affirmatively granted by statute and is therefore void and unenforceable.

No matter who writes the policy, Kansas law has the last word...

Kansas courts consistently hold that Kansas public institutions, including the State Library, public libraries, regional libraries, and by extension Sunflower eLibrary, possess enumerated powers only. Any guidance issued must implement or interpret only existing law and remain tied to express statutory authority.

Kansas law does not permit a public entity to require waiver of statutory protections or duties as a provision of voluntary participation in a public program. Participation and membership fees (paid with public funds) do not create new authority to restrict patron rights or bypass statutory due process. Neither vendor terms by private entities (i.e., publishers, book sellers) nor consortium policies can supersede public-law obligations. Such conditions are void and unenforceable because they are contrary to statute and public policy.

The consortium is exercising power it does not have, enforcing it through conditional participation, and requiring public institutions to act unlawfully to remain members.

Nice try, Kansas doesn't allow that...

The consortium policy that bans reconsideration of shared materials at the point of access through Sunflower eLibrary is ultra vires under Kansas law. Neither K.S.A.75-2547 et seq. (Regional LIbrary Systems), K.S.A. 12-1225, nor any other statute grants a regional library system authority to override or condition away the statutory and board-governed duties of member public libraries, rendering the policy void from the beginning.


Laundering the Accountability

This arrangement constitutes a public-private policy shell game, deliberately diffusing and obscuring accountability across multiple layers to evade statutory duties:

  • Local public library boards deflect reconsideration requests by pointing to the consortium's "rules" banning reconsideration of shared titles.
  • Sunflower eLibrary enforces the restrictive policy in up to 150 public libraries as a condition of participation and redirects local libraries to enforce intentionally difficult and burdensome procedures to discourage reconsideration directly from owning libraries as the only other option.
  • Upstream guidance from the publicly funded Handbook lends aspirational cover from a private lobby group (ALA) with no statutory authority in Kansas.
  • The result: responsibility is shuffled so no single entity bears practical liability, while patrons face prohibitive obstacles, in violation of the intent of the governmental guidance in the Handbook.

A public entity may not do indirectly what it lacks authority to do directly.

As an extension of Kansas public library systems established under K.S.A. 75-2547 et seq., and as a recipient and administrator of public funds, the Sunflower eLibrary consortium must operate within the bounds of Kansas law governing public libraries and regional systems. While the Kansas Public Library Handbook does not itself carry the force of law, it constitutes official, publicly funded government guidance intended to implement statutory duties.

Each member library remains a governmental entity subject to Kansas law, and participation in the consortium represents an extension of local library operations, not the creation of separate governing authorities. Neither the consortium nor its member libraries may rely on consent, contractual agreement, or voluntary participation to shield unlawful policies from enforcement or corrective action.

Nothing in the Public Library Handbook or Kansas statute authorizes a director to refuse a request or reroute it solely because another library bought the title. A public library does not have the lawful authority to defer responsibility or duties once their patrons are granted access to the materials.

Direct conflict with Definitions in the Kansas Harmful to Minors Law...

The Kansas Harmful to Minors law (K.S.A. 21-6402) prohibits knowingly distributing, presenting, or making available material that is harmful to minors (appeals to prurient interest of minors, patently offensive s*xual conduct descriptions, and lack of serious value). The consortium policy barring reconsideration of shared digital materials directly conflicts with the law by preventing or redirecting evaluation of material made available to minors. While K.S.A. 21-6402 applies to commercial establishments (may not cover public libraries), K.S.A. 21-6401 (Promoting Obscenity to Minors) broadly prohibits promoting obscenity to minors, using overlapping definitions in the 'harmful to minors' language to how 'obscene' is defined in K.S.A. 21-6401. This statute reinforces the legislative requirement to shield children from sexually explicit books, and does include public entities like libraries.  Any public library policy that allows children to access sexually explicit materials is in conflict with the coordinated definitions K.S.A. 21-6402 Harmful to Minors and K.S.A. 21-6401 Promotion of Obscenity to Minors and undermines the statutory librarian defense, preempts local board authority under K.S.A. 12-1225, exceeds regional system powers under K.S.A. 75-2547 et seq., and is ultra vires, void, and unenforceable. The statute requires accountability at the point of access, being at the library serving the minor. There are no exceptions in the law for shared digital materials.

Your kid gets to see it whether you like it or not...

The policy “Shared digital materials cannot be reconsidered” is a categorical elimination of review for the largest and fastest growing category of access. The practical effect is no local review of shared digital content, no local ability to restrict, reclassify, or remove content for minors, no governing board oversight where the minor lives, and effectively no reconsideration process at all for most titles offered by all of the libraries in the consortium across the entire state.  Kansas law gives no authority to the consortium to prevent reconsideration of any library materials.

The Sunflower eLibrary policy ensures no reconsideration body has authority over shared digital materials and is incompatible with the statutory design. By creating an unauthorized digital exemption and refusing statutory review at the point of access, whether that be on a library computer or on a personal device accessing the library patron account, the consortium policy flies in the face of the legislative intent. 

Sunflower says the Library Board of Directors cannot object, either...

The law holds the Board of Directors responsible, not the Library Director who is following the Board approved policy, so the consortium policy undermines the statutory librarian defense under K.S.A. 21-6401(g)(2) (Safe Harbor) by cutting out board-approved governance. The consortium policy is used by local libraries to shield digital materials offered to minors from reconsideration, but it in effect increases the risks to the Directors by removing the protection of this law.

By stripping local boards of authority to reconsider shared digital materials, the consortium rule exceeds delegated authority and conflicts with K.S.A. 12-1225’s (Library Board Powers and Duties) allocation of governance responsibility. A consortium policy cannot lawfully remove board oversight without express statutory delegation.

The policy surpasses the service-coordination limits of K.S.A. 75-2547 et seq. (Regional Library Systems Scope of Authority) which does not authorize Sunflower eLibrary to preempt locally accessed content governance, nor elimination of local complaint procedures, nor allows the library to use the policy of a consortium to override the guidance of the Handbook regarding reconsideration (which allows no exceptions for shared digital materials).

The Consortium operates outside the law...

No statute authorizes denial of reconsideration based on ownership, licensing structure, or consortium participation. A library consortium that bans reconsideration of materials without statutory authority is ultra vires (Latin for “beyond powers”). A public library board that adopts a policy that contradicts state law is ultra vires and cannot defer responsibility to the consortium who is already in violation of statute by banning reconsideration of shared library materials at the point of access.

The Sunflower eLibrary policy—as applied—is ultra vires, void, and unenforceable. It conflicts with statutory reconsideration requirements, protections for minors, and local board governance. The redirection defense creates an intentional barrier that effectively nullifies patron rights for shared digital content.

Local boards remain ultimately responsible and cannot lawfully defer to the consortium or rely on private ALA guidance. Patrons retain the right to request reconsideration directly from their local board for any accessible material.

Almost half of the public libraries in Kansas have adopted the Sunflower eLibrary policy as an active defense for refusing reconsideration requests and all patrons who use those libraries have been misled by these policies to accept that they have no right to request reconsideration of any of those shared materials, all in violation of Kansas law.

Kansas law—not consortium policies, not private lobby guidance—has the final word. Kansas statutes do not bend to voluntary agreements that strip away statutory rights and parental oversight. Communities have the right and responsibility to protect children, and no shell game of deflection and misdirection can lawfully deny that role.  


Resources include: 

Statutes (Kansas Statutes Annotated)

Official Government Guidance & Regional Library Sources

See also:

—
URL of this page: 




Posted by at 4 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,
Location: 300 SW 10th Ave #312n, Topeka, KS 66612, USA
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)