By HOLLY GASKILL
A new policy adopted by the Wells County Public Library’s board Tuesday night aims to outline expectations, not limitations, for library displays.
The display policy has been an item of discussion for several months among the board members. The board routinely reviews its policies, but new board member Matt Yergler initiated an earlier discussion regarding displays, specifically in light of topics considered controversial.
On Tuesday evening, the board unanimously approved a policy providing further guidance in organizing information displays, featured library material displays and a process for reconsidering displays. Board members John Stauffer, Steve Tabor, Deb Johnson, Yergler and Kim Gentis voted in favor of the policy; Dawn Ulfig and Dustin Brown were absent.
The policy outlines that displays containing controversial subjects may not provide only one viewpoint. It also gives a protocol for branch or department managers to remove postings or displayed materials and for community members to appeal for displays to be reconsidered.
A policy regarding information displays, organized by community groups, reads: “Displays, postings, bulletin boards and exhibits on such issues as political views, gender identification, racial issues, or religious views should be avoided unless more than one view is represented.”
Similarly, the featured library material displays states: “The topics should be appropriate for the section of the library where they are to be displayed. The department creating the display will select themes presented in the displays from materials within their department and avoid singular views of themes where there multiple views for the theme.”
The second policy also affirms that all materials within the library are appropriate for featured or thematic feature displays. Sarah MacNeill, library director, said she had reviewed these ideas with department directors, who affirmed they could continue making helpful displays with these expectations.
“It seems to me that it’s very clear if we trust our people that work here,” Johnson said. “They’re qualified, and they know how to do this job.”
The board also discussed adding a paragraph to clarify the controversial topics but ultimately decided it was unnecessary. Johnson noted that leaving some broadness allows the policy flexibility for interpretation to new and changing situations.
“We’re basically saying in a different way what we’ve always allowed them to do — to share the books in the library without exclusion and without promoting,” Gentis said.
“I think we’re clearly stating out the things that we have maybe not written out as expectation,” Stauffer responded. “So, from my perspective, that was one of the really valuable parts to come up here.”
Subsequently, the board approved a form request for reconsideration of a library display, which allows community members to raise any concerns with display materials. The form asks four questions:
• Why do you object to the display?
• What do you see as the negative impact of the display?
• What do you feel might be the result of reading, viewing, or listening to this work?
• Do you have a proposal on how the display might be adjusted to resolve your objection?
The library will provide, review, and revise the display as needed and provide a written reply within four weeks.
While a full audience was in attendance, only Melanie Hollingsworth gave public comment. By and large, Hollingsworth asked the board to support the library staff and the open environment of the library.
“In our community, the library is clearly loved,” Hollingsworth said. “I just want to make sure that it remains a beacon for everyone, regardless of their lifestyle … It is a very short step from banning certain books from being displayed to banning them entirely.”
Yergler responded that he was not trying to restrict information or promote a hidden agenda. “This policy doesn’t do that (ban books), but it also doesn’t elevate certain ideologies or agendas above any other either,” he said.
Johnson also expressed her commitment to protecting the library’s resources.
“I am an avid reader, but I imagine some of the books I checked out, some of you might really turn your nose up,” Johnson quipped. “And the same for the rest of you. There are lots of books in this library that I personally probably would not want to check out — but there may be somebody else in this room that does. I think we really have to protect that. We are a public library. We have to serve the public. I just want to make sure (that) when we make these changes, they’re all for the good.”
In closing, Stauffer stressed that the board reviews policies routinely, and these new policies — just like any others — can be amended if there are any unexpected adverse effects.
holly@news-banner.com
