MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

There is no legal authority in New York that denies the ability of a town public library (or any municipally affiliated public library) to solicit donations.

There is no law that bars it.

There is no regulation that bars it.

There is no comptroller opinion that bars it.

There is no attorney general opinion that bars it.

There is no case law that bars it.

Now, despite all that lack of barring, there ARE many reasons why libraries funded by tax dollars, and operating in conjunction with a municipality, may want to avoid the general solicitations of donations (some previous "Ask the Lawyer" RAQs on this issue is here: https://www.wnylrc.org/ask-the-lawyer/raqs/282,  https://www.wnylrc.org/ask-the-lawyer/raqs/68 and here: https://www.wnylrc.org/ask-the-lawyer/raqs/25). For those reasons (and maybe ten more I could name after a strong cup of coffee), I always strongly urge public libraries who wish to solicit donations to have a precise, defined purpose for soliciting donations...something that is distinct and separate from the core operations of the library.

For example, if the library would like to sponsor local artists to create window displays related to new books and programming, a solicitation could be "Donate to our local artist window program!" Or if the library wanted to solicit funds for extra activities, a solicitation could be "Donate to our 'Kids Jumping into Reading' 2023 fitness program!" Or if the library wants to create or grow an endowment, it could be "Assure our future, donate to our endowment fund!"[1]

And of course, regardless of the purpose, any library receiving donations must be set up to receive, track, and expend the donations per proper fiscal controls. If the money is for a specific purpose (as I have suggested it be), the accounting mechanisms to show it was only expended for that purpose must be in place before the money is solicited. If the money is being solicited online via credit card or other electronic means, care should be taken to select a processor that the library's financial institution regards as secure.

Solicitation of donations are how public libraries can grow non-essential programs, amass a capital funds, and plan for long-range strategic objectives. The extra conditions non-association libraries face when it comes to using donated money--controls on procurement, criteria for investment, and the interplay between public and private money--is why many public libraries designate Friends groups to solicit funds for "extras."

But while a public library may determine that such solicitation is best left to an affiliated not-for-profit, so long as they have the right policies and fiscal controls, there is no bar to a public library receiving donated funds, and no bar on asking for them... or enabling such a request by putting a "donate" button on the library website.

Thank you for a great question.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

I have a lot of fun-loving clients.  Here are some examples of activities I've created liability waivers for:

• Mechanical bull riding
• Smashing a car with a sledgehammer for charity
• A "ToughMudder" event
• Sword fighting

I have also worked on liability waivers for more commonplace activities like attending a hockey game, horseback riding, and cheerleading.[1]

The purpose of a liability waiver is to limit a person's ability to bring legal action for injuries related to a particular activity.  Therefore, the trick to creating a successful waiver is making sure it is enforceable when a worst-case scenario--an injury related to that particular activity--occurs.

Because of the high stakes--and because the law in New York can have an impact on how much liability can be waived (for instance, a waiver of liability at certain types of pools[2] is invalid, no matter how well-written) -- a waiver should almost always be custom-crafted to the actual activity, at a specific place, and thus not borrowed from another entity.

The waiver for the mechanical bull rider was different from the waiver for the hockey spectator.

The waver for the person venting their rage on a car for charity was different from the waiver for an equestrian.

The waiver for the sword fighter actually had more in common with the waiver for the cheerleader than you might think...but was still different.

Add to this diversity the fact that in New York, the waiver for a municipal library might have to look different from one used by another municipal library, or an association library, and there are a lot of variables to consider.

So, my answer to the question "Will we need to consult an attorney to draw up the waiver for a fee?" is: if your library wants assurance that the waiver actually protects the library from liability, then YES.

But wait, there's more.

I appreciate that for a not-for-profit such as a library, which likely doesn't have a budget to go around hiring lawyers to hand-craft waivers for every separate fitness activity (or if it does, would rather spend that money on materials and programming), bringing in a lawyer every time you want to sponsor a new physical fitness event can be cost-prohibitive.

So here are a few options between commissioning a new waiver for every fitness event, and just scrapping such events in the first place.

Solution 1: Pass the risk of liability on to the instructor

Any physical fitness class being offered by a library should be led by an instructor with the documented qualifications and insurance coverage to limit and cover the risk of injury related to the activity.

For a yoga class, this means the instructor should be able to show they 1) are certified by an acknowledged yoga authority; 2) are willing to accept responsibility for injury caused by their yoga class, and 3) have insurance that will cover such injury (whether the person sues the instructor, or the library, or both).

A contract showing all this will 1) recite the instructor's qualifications; 2) list their insurance (and attach a certificate showing the coverage; and 3) include a "hold harmless" and "indemnification." That means that if there is a claim of liability resulting from the classes, the instructor's insurance coverage will take the heat.

Such an instructor will, usually, have their own waiver that they require participants to sign, tailored to the precise activity.  Further, to most experienced instructors, none of this will be an outlandish requirement.

Does this mean that start-ups and amateur instructors might not be able to offer classes at your library?  Yes...and while it may seem harsh, that is a good thing.  If a person is great at yoga and loves sharing what they've learned, but doesn't have the documented credentials to assure the library that they know how to teach it, or insurance coverage, they should not be selected to offer a fitness class by your library.

The public attending a fitness class will trust that the library has picked the right person; having the ability to demonstrate a bona fide qualification and insurance is a key sign you've made the right selection.

Solution 2: Work with your insurance carrier

Your library likely has some form of general premises liability coverage.[3]  This means that an insurance carrier, on an annual basis, is sending your library a copy of an insurance policy--and the library is paying for it.

Aside from your board and employees, you know who doesn't want your library to get sued for an injury that happens during a fitness activity?  Your insurance carrier.

Now, what I am about to write may, or may not, be helpful.  In my experience, some insurance carriers will bend over backwards to make sure their "insured" doesn't get sued; they will offer training on risk management, they will offer employee screenings, and they will offer to review forms and policies.  Other carriers, on the other hand, will just accept a check for your library's annual premium, and wish you "good luck" with liability.

When your library is contemplating any physical event with a moderate risk (yes, like Zumba), it is a good idea to check in with the insurance carrier for the library.  Do they have waivers they want you to use (even if your instructor has held you harmless)?  Do they have rules they require you to post (even if the rules are pretty obvious)?  Is there an exception in your coverage (does it not cover fitness classes at all)?  All of this is critical to know before your library takes on any risk for a program. 

And who knows...I've actually had clients get the "all clear" from insurance carriers, who confirm "Yes, that is within the scope of your coverage, let the Zumba commence!"  It all depends on what's in the policy.

Solution 3: "One-Waiver-Fits-Most"

With a "one-waiver-fits-most" solution, an organization identifies a suite of low-risk activities, and asks that their lawyer write "one waiver to rule them all,"[4] and only offer that type of activity...saving costly custom waivers for riskier (and likely rarer) activities. 

What is "low risk" activity?  That is up to your lawyer, insurance carrier, and library.  But it in general a "low-risk" activity is one so low-key and mundane, with no heightened or specific risk, that an enforceable waiver covering it wouldn't require any special bells and whistles.[5]

Common examples of such "low risk" activities might include:

• Nature walks in a town or city park
• Organized bike ride in public park
• Local history walking tour
• Breathing or mindfulness class
• Croquette, badminton, tennis, Wii[6]

Although they might seem low-risk, I would generally exclude from this list:

• Yoga (including chair yoga)
• Dance class
• Any contact sports
• Organized bike ride on public streets
• Anything involving children running

THESE ARE JUST EXAMPLES...each library's list of "low risk" activities to be conducted with a "one-size-fits-most" waiver will change based on the library's type, level of insurance, and tolerance for risk.[7]

While not perfect, the "one-size-fits-most" solution is a cost-effective way to confidently offer programs from a menu of activities, while also protecting the library and not blowing the budget on legal services.

To ask a lawyer to write a "one-size-fits-all" waiver for your library, gather:

• your insurance policies
• code of conduct
• list of typical activities
• any grants funding the activities
• Lease (if your library doesn't own the building)

Be ready to meet for maybe half an hour with the lawyer to discuss the fitness events that your library wants to host.  For municipal libraries, be ready to involve the town/village/city attorney at either the beginning, or the end, since depending on building ownership, and some other factors, the municipality may need to have some input on this too.

Mix that all together, and you should get:

• a list of "low risk" activities,
• a "one-size-fits-most" waiver;
• some guidance on when you need an instructor contract;
• instructions on how low to save signed waivers[8],
• and a sense of reduced-liability confidence.

Happy Zumba!

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

Many libraries, for a variety of good reasons, have security cameras.  Some libraries control those recording systems; others do not.  But no matter how they get there, when cameras are in a library, the questions posed by the member are critical.

Here is why: every library in the State of New York is bound by ethics and law to safeguard patron privacy.  Those obligations start with the ethics of the American Library Association[1] and the New York Library Association,[2] assuring patron privacy; these ethics find legal teeth in New York Civil Practice Law and Rules[3] and the Public Officer's Law.[4]

At the local level, patron privacy is often reinforced in a library's ethics statement, bylaws, and policies.  The practical duties of patron privacy are found in job descriptions (particularly of directors and IT professionals), and in membership terms between libraries and systems.  And it is part of every new employees' on-boarding.[5]

Because librarians and library leadership are so aware of this privacy obligation, and because assurance of patron privacy is a key component of information access, protecting patron privacy is often referred to in the library community as nigh-unto-sacred duty. So sacred, in fact, that I have met more than one librarian willing to go toe-to-toe with law enforcement seeking unauthorized access to patron data.[6]

While it takes a certain type of gumption to stand up to law enforcement, it takes another type (equally critical, but not as concentratedly defiant) of gumption to think about patron privacy in the context of software, landlords, and security cameras.  One takes a willingness to take a stand in the moment.  The other takes a willingness to think about details, to leave nothing to chance, and to ask a lot of very specific, very persistent questions.[7]

Both of these types of gumption are critical to the modern librarian, but only one gives you an easily dramatic answer to the question "how was your day?"

We'll leave the dramatic aspect of this for another time.[8]  Below, please find a boring--but vital-- checklist of steps and language to help a library answer the questions posed by the member, when a landlord is using cameras trained on library premises:

Step 1: Assess what the library's lease says about security and use of cameras

For libraries with landlords (remember, your library has a landlord even if you only pay a token amount of rent,[9]) it is important to have a written lease. 

Why?  Because, among other critical things,[10] that lease can provide clarity about who provides the on-site security (including a camera system) and set the stage for how the landlord and the tenant will manage security-related details.

In this case, the member has clarified that the security system will be controlled by the municipal (county) landlord.  Here are the details posited by the member:

These cameras will not be regularly monitored unless there is a reason to consult them. We will not be viewing the footage per a patron’s request. They will be maintained by our county facilities staff and consulted only in cases where a criminal act was committed.

These details, upon which the library will base its own actions, should be confirmed in the lease.  Such confirmation should include, whenever possible, a marked survey or map of the property, showing the limits of the camera's line of sight.

Step 2:  Assess if the lease terms and security camera arrangements promote the privacy commitments of the library

Just a note: while a municipality may procure and install a camera system with the intent to only monitor it "in the event of alleged criminal activity," in my experience, there is no way to enforce such a restriction, and some risk that the use of the cameras could change over time.

For instance:

• The recordings could be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information law;
• The recordings could be accessed via subpoena in the event of an alleged personal injury or other civil claim;
• The temptation for a town, city, or county to use the recordings internally (even for something as innocent as using them to check if a snowplow crew did a good job, or if a worker is arriving on time) might be hard to resist.

A library can't control this.  That said, when a camera system is installed, a library can request assurance that the municipality's internal policy, governing the cameras, include language:

• Alerting the users of the system to the sensitivity of patron records at a library;
• Confirming that the footage showing people entering and leaving the library is not regarded as a "library record" by either party; and
• Confirm that under no circumstances should the security cameras enable recording of information reflecting patron use of services.[11]

Once a library performs these two steps, it can answer the member's two questions:

First question: What type of permanent notification do we need to post about the use of cameras?

Once the library has written assurance that the landlord's use of recording technology will not result in the creation or disclosure of a library record, it is up to the director and board if, or how, your library should alert the community.

Personally, as a patron, I would appreciate a "courtesy notice" such as: "Your library records are confidential.  Please know that while our landlord has security cameras in [ZONES], the library does not allow recording that could impact patron privacy inside the building."[12]

OR (if the library makes use of its own security cameras): "Your library records are confidential.  Please know that our landlord has security cameras in [ZONES] and may use those for security purposes, but any security camera record maintained by the Library that shows use of library services is considered confidential and is used for library purposes only."

Second question: What major points do we need to ensure we include in our privacy policy?

The privacy policy of the library, or in the alternative, the minutes of the board, should reflect the details and privacy safeguards confirmed through the two-step analysis above. 

For instance, after the analysis is done, the board can note in the minutes: "Regarding the landlord's use of outside security cameras: As of DATE, the Library's landlord, NAME, will have security cameras observing certain outdoor areas, including library property.  The Library has verified that its lease, and the landlord's internal policy, prevent the landlord's security cameras from generating or disclosing confidential library records.  The public will be notified as to where the cameras are recording, and that such recordings are not confidential library records."

I appreciate that this review/confirm process can be a bit clunky.  However, it is also an opportunity to alert a critical partner (a landlord, and sponsoring municipality) to the importance of library-patron confidentiality, and to assure the public that privacy is a priority.  By seizing the moment to confirm that privacy is being properly considered and enforced, a library not only assures its ethics and legal compliance, but can create an ally in that eternal (and important) fight.[13]

I hope this approach is helpful.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

In law school, one of the first classes you take is "real property."
 

I remember thinking, back in that first semester before my brain got converted into that of a lawyer: "Real" property?  What...is there something called UNreal property?

Of course, nowadays when I see questions like this—about land, and land rights, and the laws impacting them—I think "Oooh...a question about real property!"

Warn your kids: this is what three years of law school will do to you.

I appreciate questions about real property, because I really enjoy working on issues involving land, and land rights, and the laws impacting them.  Whether it's roads, old buildings, or construction matters, some of my favorite work requires reviewing surveys, obsessing over title abstracts,[1] and poring over inspection reports.  And don't get me started about design-build contracts.

In this case, many of the fundamental considerations of this submission were addressed in a previous "Ask the Lawyer" from 12/13/2019.  So as a primer, readers may want to take a look at that previous answer, where we discuss some of the fundamental things a library has to consider when selling real property.

This background allows me to jump right into the specific concerns of the member's questions:

Question 1: "How much autonomy does the Library have in accepting and selling this property?"

Answer: unless there is a specific provision in the library's charter, bylaws, or contract with its sponsoring municipality that expressly creates some type of co-ownership, the library, as the sole owner, has ALL the autonomy.

Question 2: The sponsoring municipality feels that perhaps it is their responsibility to handle the sale according to their regular procedures, including a permissive referendum.

Answer: unless there is a clear legal claim that puts title entirely or partly into the municipality, the various state laws governing sale of municipal property do not apply; rather, the sale is governed by Education Law Section 226.

Question 3: Finally, who controls the proceeds from the sale?

Answer: the board of the library, and no one else.

To the member's brief, pithy questions, I will add a question of my own:

Question 4: Why am I so confident about the answers to questions 1 through 3?

Answer: because I have researched the following:

• The relevant state laws and regulations of the State of New York
• Case law regarding cases involving public library sale of property
• Relevant guidance from the State Comptroller
• Relevant guidance from the NY Attorney General
• Relevant guidance from the State Education Department

These materials span over sixty years of library law-making, and I am not going to summarize them all here.  But for those who wish to dive a little deeper into this topic (buckle up, unless you, too, are interested in real property, I've been told this is pretty boring), here is a brief overview:

Education Laws 260 and 226, together, confirm that the trustees of every library chartered in New York,[2] may "[b]uy, sell, mortgage, let and otherwise use and dispose of its property as they shall deem for the best interests of the institution..."

Here are some examples showing how this legal structure has been applied:

In 1953, the NY State Comptroller opined that when a village and a library jointly acquired property, they were co-owners.[3]  This means a library can co-own a library building along with its sponsor (much as two individuals can co-own a parking lot).  If that is the case, the law and regulations applicable to both entities would govern a sale.  However, that same year, the Education Department confirmed that a chartered library is a separate entity from its municipal sponsor.[4]  

Flash forward to 1976, when the Comptroller stated that a school district library[5] could acquire a building on its own.[6]   Since that time, there hasn't been a lot of case law over who owns library buildings:[7] like any other stand-alone, not-for-profit education corporation, a library can own its own building.

That said, while the New York Education Law empowers public libraries to buy, sell, mortgage, and otherwise dispose of their real property, there are other laws and regulations controlling how the resulting assets can be used.[8]  This is why a public library (or any library) should not buy, sell, lease, or arrange for capital improvements without its lawyer involved (that goes double for accepting a bequest or a restricted donation of land or a building, which has not only legal/regulatory considerations, but could also be fraught with the drama that can accompany wills and transfers of land).

Now, in the midst of all this ownership/autonomy, it is good to remember: not all public libraries own their buildings.[9]  Some libraries are tenants of their sponsoring municipality (to check the ownership of the building, check the deed or the real property tax records for your county).  But even a library that is a tenant of their municipality buildings can own a separate building—if some nice person or entity decides to give them one.

So in a case like the one described by the member, the most useful thing would be to 1) check the library's charter; 2) check the documents giving title of the property to the library; and 3) make sure the lawyers for both the municipality and the library (and the buyer!) are on the same page about ownership and salability.  As the lawyers do their "real property" thing, so long as the title is "clear" and solely in the name of the library, it is the library who owns the property, and the board of the library who decides if/how to sell it (in a way consistent with its charter, bylaws, and charitable status....on that, see the "Ask the Lawyer" from 12/13/2019).

Thank you for a great question.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

Non-governmental employers

Recent changes to the Labor Law make the "private" part of this question easy to answer: since all employers must now offer all employees sick leave (unpaid if the employer has under four employees, paid if five or more), an employee may use that sick leave for the purpose of obtaining medical care, including to get vaccinated.

If a non-government-agency employer would like to go one step further and not require an employee to use accrued sick leave, but instead, give them a day (or two half-days, for the vaccine that requires two shots) for the specific purpose of being vaccinated, that's fine, too, so long as the library considers vaccination of employees to be part of its Safety Plan (making the vaccination a work activity, and not a prohibited gratuity from a charitable entity to a private person).[1]  But there is no obligation to do so.

Small but critically important exception to this rule: if your library employees are in a union and their time off is subject to a collective bargaining agreement, you must check and abide by that agreement, or develop a special provision with the union.

Public libraries

Okay, this is where it gets tricky.  For public libraries that consider their employees to be employees of a "government agency," hang on one second, we'll address what you can do in the paragraph below.  For all other public libraries, who must follow the new sick leave law, the section above applies.

Public Libraries Who are "Government Agencies"

For public libraries whose employees are considered employees of their sponsoring municipalities,[2]  there is no obligation to "give" paid time out of the library to get vaccinated unless it is in a collective bargaining agreement or your government subdivision's response plan.  However, if your library is allotted vaccine as part of a rollout to public employers, and the entity you are getting it through (sponsoring municipality or school district) is encouraging vaccination by allowing it to be done on work time, that is an option to consider.  Further, if your library develops an employee vaccination rollout plan as an addendum to its Safety Plan[3] and would like to offer up to a certain number of hours of paid time out of the office to encourage vaccination, if part of a plan, that can be allowed (but is not required).[4]

Small but very important exception to this rule, just like with "private" libraries: if your library employees are in a union and their time off is subject to a collective bargaining agreement, you must check and abide by that agreement, or develop a special provision with the union.

For All

Issues like this a) affect mission and morale, b) relate deeply to employee and public safety, c) can impact a library's budget, and d) are fraught with compliance concerns, so any decision is best to tie to your library's Safety Plan,[5] and to have trustee approval (confirmed by a vote).

I continue to admire the care for others, tenacity, and attention to detail members of the library community bring to their questions as we get through this pandemic together.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

Many of the questions we get at "Ask the Lawyer"^[1] relate to this concern.  As the priorities cited by the member suggest, the library-municipality relationship is a Big Issue.

I have worked with city, town, and village attorneys, in one way or another,^[2] for most of my professional life. So I can understand why sometimes, if they are focusing on reducing liability or overhauling operations, a town board or a city mayor might be tempted to think of the library as "just another department."

But we know that is not the case.

With all that in mind, I am very grateful to have this opportunity to craft a pro-active answer to this issue.

I am going to let the requested sample Memorandum of Understanding—or "MOU"—do most of the talking on this topic.  For comments on why I have included certain things, you'll see footnotes and items in italics that should be removed from any final version (unless you have a really fun-loving and tolerant town attorney).

Caveats

Of course, with all things "template," this MOU should only serve as a boilerplate.

Further, libraries with very sensitive or less-than-ideal relationships with their municipalities might want to use this only as an internal guide for discussion.  It's not a fun fact, but it remains a fact that some municipal leaders could take a "request for clarity" as an act of aggression.

And as noted throughout, to the greatest degree possible, your library should consult their own attorney about the different considerations in this template.^[3]  With that in mind, I hope this document is a useful starting place for that attorney, and I welcome calls from lawyers working with this document.[4]

And here we go:

USING THIS TEMPLATE:  Any guidance in italics, and the footnotes, should be removed before an MOU using this template is finalized.  If at all possible, the MOU and attachments should be reviewed by an attorney before signature.  Items in bold are non-negotiable; they are based on the law and are not subject to change.[5]

[PROPOSED] MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

Between the [NAME] Library and the [MUNICIALITY]

This memorandum of understanding is between the [NAME] Library (the "Library") and the [INSERT NAME OF MUNICIPALITY] (["GOVERNMENT ENTITY" or "GE"]^[6]), which both serve the community of [INSERT NAME OF MUNICIPALITY] (the "Community").

This memorandum of understanding ("MOU") is entered into by the Library's Board of Trustees (the "Library Board") and the [AUTHORITY OF THE ENTITY^[7]] ("[GE AUTHORITY]"^[8]) and is intended to ensure clarity and unified purpose with regard to critical interdependencies between the Library and the GE.  Together, the Library and the [GE] are the "Parties" to this MOU.

As a living document this [first] version of the MOU sets forward both items of clarity, will be revisited by the Parties in the month of [INSERT] every [TIME SPAN^[9]].  

Mission and Shared Purpose

The mission of the Library is [INSERT MISSION].

The mission of the [GE] is to [INSERT MISSION].

The Library and the [GE] share the mission-oriented purpose of serving the Community within the [GE] by [compose and insert "shared purpose"^[10]]; this is their "Shared Purpose." 

The Parties

The Library is a public library chartered by the Regents of the New York State Education Department on [DATE], as shown in the most recent version of the Charter attached as "A" (the "Charter").^[11]

As required by law, the Library is governed by a board whose authority is set by sections 255, 256, 260, and 226 of the New York Education Law, the Not-for-Profit Education Law, the Charter, and the bylaws of the library.  A copy of the most current bylaws of the Library is attached as "B."  

The [GE] is a Municipal Corporation incorporated under the laws of New York State in [YEAR]. 

As required by law, the [GE] is governed by [INSERT]^[12].

A copy of the [GE] Code (the "Code") may be found at [insert code link^[13]]. 

[IF RELEVANT] The provision[s] of the Code pertaining to the Library are attached as "C."

The Relationship of the Parties

As a Regents- chartered entity, the Library is an independent corporation with the ability to own property, enter into contracts, employ a workforce, and maintain its own bank account for the management of library funds. 

Further, the Library is required by state law and regulation to employ adequate employees to staff the Library in fulfillment of its Plan of Service, which is attached as "D."^[14]

Since the [GE] and the Library are two distinct entities, many of their operations occur independently of the other.  However, for the sake of their Shared Purpose, the leadership of the parties have determined that certain "Critical Interdependencies" are in the best interests of the Community.

These "Independent Operations" and "Critical Interdependencies" are itemized below, with comments or additional information in column 3.^[15]

Acknowledged on behalf of the [NAME]Library on _______:

BY: _______________________________________________

Acknowledged on behalf of the [NAME of ENTITY] on _______:

BY:______________________________________________

Attachments:

A: Library Charter

B:  Library Bylaws

C:  Section of municipal code pertaining to library

D:  Library Plan of Service

E:  Survey or schematic of library property

F:  Current Insurance Policy (premises)

G:  Current Insurance Policy (assets)

H:  Benefit documents

I:   Current Insurance Policy ("Directors and Officers Insurance")

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

Before I answer this, I am going to share a story.  Trust me, it’s relevant.

When the workforce restrictions and ban on large gatherings due to COVID-19 started impacting libraries, the first wave of questions to “Ask the Lawyer” were about continuity of operations.  Specifically, they were about continuing payroll and still offering programs, even though staff would need to work from home.

Because Executive Orders and public health restrictions were happening at a rapid pace, answers needed to be developed quickly. 

If there is one thing the lawyers hate, it is quick decision-making.  We like precedent, we like time for research, and we like ample time to reflect on the implications of our client’s decisions.   In a world moving ever-faster, this is one of the things I cherish about my profession: it demands reflection.

But with libraries waiting for input, I didn’t have the luxury of time.  My research indicated that—barring a union contract provision or other express intervening factor—job expectations could be temporarily altered and library programs could continue, re-tooled to meet social distancing requirements (a/k/a “online”) while ensuring legal compliance and limiting liability.  But I couldn’t take a week or two to decide.

So I did what lawyers do when we don’t have time to let advice ferment—I turned to another lawyer.

I called an attorney I knew would appreciate the nuances of a question involving municipal law, Education law, taxpayer money, and the all-seeing eye of the NYS Comptroller.  I laid out the thinking that would eventually form my answers, and asked him to poke any holes he could see (I think I said “Pretend you’re the attorney for an angry taxpayer”). 

He asked a few well-informed, testing questions, and when my legal analysis held up, I felt good. 

But then he asked:

“Cole, do you actually think when this thing is all over, the Comptroller is going to organize a posse and hunt down libraries for trying to help their communities? I mean come on…people are in real need here.  Who would do that?”

I laughed, and it felt good.[1]  I thanked him and said I owed him one (in my world that means he gets to ask me a similar favor, any time, night or day, and I have to deliver).

Here’s the truth, though: although I laughed, my secret answer to his question was: Yes.  Yes, I do think that when this is all over, the Comptroller could audit and expose fiscal mis-steps by well-meaning libraries.  And I am also concerned that frightened tax payers and municipalities, searching for a way to “solve” fiscal panic, could use any small lapses in compliance or transparency to try and reduce budgets next fiscal year (just when they’ll be needing their libraries to assist with ongoing community recovery).  That is why the member’s question is so important.

That said, I got into this business because I believe that law, when well-developed and thoughtfully applied, can ensure justice and create the conditions for a happy society.  And I think the law—even as construed by the Comptroller—will allow for the actions proposed by the member, without the concern that a prohibited gift[2] or shady transaction was engaged in.

How?

I’ll give you three solutions.

But first…

Some Necessary Background

As a primer to each solution, just in case you haven’t checked in on fiscal controls for public libraries, every reader should visit NYLA’s excellent “Handbook for Library Trustees” (2018 edition), pages 50-58.[3]  This section sets forth all the routine requirements for properly accepting, retaining, spending, and accounting for both public and privately sourced funding. 

The solutions below, and the steps to set them in motion, build off the assumption that a library is following the fiscal practices laid out in those pages.

And just one more thing…

Safety First

Okay.  Let’s say your board is ready to assess and approve budget adjustments to initiate the acquisition and distribution of food and PPE.  Your staff and some volunteers are rarin’ to go.[4]   All you need to do is sort out the legal stuff.

But before worrying about how to fund it, or how to characterize the initiative in the budget, the first thing to consider is safety.

No matter what situation the library is in, a written safety plan, informed by OSHA and CDC guidelines, and ideally, confirmed with the local County Health Department, is the first priority for any such initiative.  Before approving funds, a board should review the plan for safety, and be assured that it is as well-developed as it can be (and again, if at all possible, confirmed by experts).[5]

So with that “safety first” caveat, here are the three solutions:

Solution 1: Acquisition and Distribution Only (No programming)

Objective: The library will acquire and distribute food and PPE, without any educational programming component or further conditions for participation (people can just stop by and pick up what they need).

Action Steps:

Step 1: Organizers (who could be board members, or staff, or volunteers…any combination is fine) develop and, with a county health official, affirm a safety plan for the distribution of the resources.  This plan should include how the items will be acquired, transported, and picked up, and what staff and volunteer resources will be used. 

NOTE: to ensure the safety of employees and protect the library from any liability, changes to routine job duties should be confirmed in a short letter referencing the safety plan.

Step 2:  Considering the need they hope to fill, and safety parameters, organizers develop a procurement plan, consistent with library policy and pages 50-58 of the Trustee Handbook, for the supplies to be acquired.  This plan should consider the appropriate sourcing and selection of supplies (PPE meeting CDC guidelines, food suited to re-distribution), and the need to follow relevant procurement laws.

NOTE:  On March 27, the Governor issued Executive Order 202.11, which suspends the public bid opening requirements of General Municipal Law Section 103(2) (of course, 103 only applies to purchases exceeding $20k…that would be a lot of PPE!).

Step 3: The Treasurer develops a budget recommendation for a budget change that will fund the procurement plan, and confirms to the board that any private funds to be used are not barred by donor terms (if all of the steps in this solution are followed, it will be a legal use of tax levy funds).

Step 4:  The board looks through its mission and plan of service and selects the language in those guiding resources consistent with a distribution for the goods to promote the health or general well-being of the community.

Step 5:  The board verifies the above steps, verifies consistency with bylaws and library policies, and sets a meeting under the modified procedures of the Open Meetings Law to adopt a customized version of the following resolution:

WHEREAS it is the mission of the [NAME] Library to [insert] and the plan of service for the library includes [insert];and

WHEREAS the state is currently in a state of emergency as a result of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic; and

WHEREAS owing to the pandemic and state of emergency, the library’s area of service is in an unprecedented state of need with regard to fundamentals and supplies for personal safety; and

WHEREAS, owing to travel restrictions and the need of essential workers to serve our community, some people within our area of service may not be card-holding members of the community, but still be in need of supplies that will protect the their well-being, as therefore the general health of our area of service; and

WHEREAS the board finds it consistent with the mission and plan of service to adjust the current budget of the library to allocate resources to assist those within our community by supplying fundamental resources to enable the promotion of health and safety during a time of emergency; and

WHEREAS because the library is uniquely situated and widely regarded as a trustworthy and centrally located institution whose resources are freely accessible to all, and regards it as mission-critical to continue that role at this time; and

WHEREAS the library staff has identified a written plan for the safe allocation of such fundamental resources, and such plan has been reviewed by appropriate health officials; and

WHEREAS the library staff has identified and the board has duly reviewed a proposed plan for the responsible and compliant procurement of such resources, which is attached to this resolution and included in the minutes of this meeting; and

WHEREAS the Treasurer has verified that any private sources of funding do not bar the proposed procurement;

BE IT RESOLVED that the current budget be amended to direct [$amount] from [insert] to the acquisition and free distribution of food and personal protective equipment during the state of emergency, and during any period of recovery (the “Community Health Initiative Plan”); and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the acquisition of such resources listed in the Procurement Plan shall be conducted and accounted for per all the required provisions for procurement; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the library shall effect the distribution of the resources only as set forth in the attached Safety Plan.

Solution 2: A Public Health Program

Objective: the library develops a program, consistent with its plan of service, to educate participants on PPE and the importance of good nutrition during a pandemic, and after a short educational program, makes supplies available.  This could even include innovative and fun ideas, like a recipe from a local chef, or instructions for canning food.

Action Steps:

Step 1: Organizers develop and, with a county health official, affirm the content of a short educational program, as well as the safety plan for distribution of the resources. 

Step 2:  Follow all the steps in “Solution 1,” but add this “whereas” clause to your resolution:

WHEREAS the library staff has [developed/identified] a short informational program on personal protective equipment and the important of good nutrition, and such program has been [reviewed by/endorsed by] appropriate health officials;

And add this further action to the resolution:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in conjunction with the distribution of fundamental resources the library shall promote the short informational program identified in the Safety Plan.

And finally…

Solution 3: The Partnered Program

Objective: together with another entity, and per a written agreement, the library allocates financial, and perhaps other, resources to a joint public health initiative to acquire and distribute supplies.

This one I can’t provide a template for: the permutations are just too diverse.  I can only say, when working with another entity, the library will need to consider every element listed in the above solutions: safety (first, always), mission alignment, employee needs, budget, and proper vetting of the plan by appropriate health officials.

Because of the risks related to compliance, a collaborative approach (unless it is just a donation to one of the above efforts…with that, take the money and get it done!) should be only through a written agreement that has been reviewed by the library's lawyer.  For this reason, it could be more cumbersome than other approaches, but in the event of a worst-case scenario, confirming all those details will be worth it.

For All Solutions

For any of the solutions I have outlined above, a critical contributor may be the library's insurance carrier. Right after the organizers start developing the plan for safety, someone should give your carrier a call, just to make sure there are no “exclusions” from the policy or conditions for your library to consider.

How do you check in with a carrier on this?  Just tell them: “Some lawyer who writes about library legal issues said we should check in with you before we do this.”

While your insurance carrier is probably used to the library developing innovative programming and serving a wide swathe of the population, the distribution of food and PPE during a pandemic is something they might want to weigh in on.  That said, in my experience, most carriers will encourage your initiative.  They might ask questions about where the distribution will take place, who is offering the programming, and how you are sourcing the supplies. 

Since the answers might impact your planning, it is better to call them early in the process, rather than just before the board meets (telephonically, as allowed by Executive Order 202.6[6]) to vote.

And who knows?  They might even have some helpful hints for you as you undertake to support your community.   This whole thing is keeping agents and adjusters awake at night, just like the rest of us.

Thank you

Okay, once I start waxing on about insurance, it’s time to pack it in.  I hope this was helpful, and I hope it can contribute to your library meeting the needs of your community.

Thank you for a great question, for your determination, and your dauntless innovation.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

Perhaps because our nation was born resisting taxes, few things can rile a close-knit community so much as a good old-fashioned tax levy.  This is one area where the legal issues might be simpler than the range of human emotions. 

That said, the laws governing a school district’s support for a library can present significant considerations, if not impediments, before it can be successfully deployed.  So let’s fly at 10,000 feet, and look at the lay of the land.

There are relatively few entity types that can levy taxes based on real property,[1] and school districts are one of them.[2]  In addition to facilitating school funding through those taxes (the school budget “levy”), districts are empowered to raise a separate amount for “library purposes.”[3]

This power to tax for the benefit of libraries comes with some very clear conditions.

First, the amount to be raised for the library must be listed as a separate item on the ballot; the voters must see it as distinct from the funds to be levied for the school(s).[4]

Second, if the proposition passes, the funds must be delivered to the treasurer of the library as soon as possible, and cannot be retained or mingled with district funds.[5]

Third, the amount of taxes attributable to library purposes must be separately stated on each statement of taxes.[6]  Voters should be able to easily discern the difference.

Now, here is where things get really interesting.

There are two ways such a proposition related to a library levy can get on a school district ballot: 1) a vote by library’s board,[7] or 2) a petition directly from the voters.[8]  Since 2007,[9] the precise amount of any proposed levy has to be endorsed by the library’s board[10] (this is so competing or even contrary funding resolutions can’t get on the same ballot[11]).  When a library board votes to request it, the proposition must be placed on the ballot—even if it lacks the support of the school board.[12]

This power can be used to the benefit of any public library: municipal, special district, school district, free association, etc.[13]  This is true even if the precise boundaries of the school district and the library’s chartered area of service don’t match up.[14]

How can that be?  Anyone who follows “library world” knows that there are numerous kinds of libraries: municipal (created by and with the boundaries of a city, town, or village), school district, special district (which can cross and combine municipal borders), and free association.[15]  The permutations of these libraries are vast, but all serve their communities without charge, and thus meet the definition of “library” as used in Education Law §259.  And thus, all qualify as a “library” that may be supported by a tax levy by a school district.

Here is how the New York State Commissioner of Education,[16] quoting an earlier case, put it as recently as 2015:

As stated in Earlville, a school district is among those entities enumerated in Education Law §255 and, thus, is authorized to vote taxes “for library purposes” pursuant to Education Law §259(1)(a).  Earlville noted that, “although only those entities specifically enumerated in Education Law §255 may levy a tax for library purposes under §259(1)(a) [citations omitted], there is no restriction in §259(1) regarding the type of library for which such taxes may be levied.”[17]

Voters, of course, are free to reject the request for support (they can also bring a petition to cease the levy[18]). But the mere act of being asked gives the voters a direct opportunity to consider their community’s overall commitment to educational resources.  In library-philic New York, where we treasure books and learning, this is a critical commitment to education, information access, and community advancement.

It is also a serious vote, since once the levy has been established by the school district, it remains in effect each year until there is a vote to have it removed[19] (which, again, can be initiated by the library’s board, or the voters).

As described by the member, boards considering a school board levy are wise to gather (early) ALL the support they can as they plan for a school board tax levy proposition.  The State Education Department’s Division of Library Development maintains a great starter kit for an initiative.[20]  Reaching out to NYLA, as well as other library advocacy groups, can be critical.  And a lawyer with experience in education law (to help draft resolutions, track the paperwork, and have your back when the unexpected[21] happens) is an essential member of your team.

But while you assemble your team and resources, don’t forget “the people.”  As the famous Tip O’Neall[22] liked to say, “All politics is local.”  So while it’s essential to know a tax levy initiative stands on firm legal ground, nothing replaces careful cultivation of support[23] for your initiative.  That is where the allies listed above, and an attorney looking at the specific circumstances of your library (and always the latest case law), are essential.

Thanks for a great question on a very important topic.  Good wishes for a vote that supports democracy, community, and information access.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

Retirement benefits play a critical part in employee recruitment and retention.  Library leadership should carefully consider—and routinely re-evaluate—the role of retirement in the suite of benefits they use to attract and nurture personnel.

To craft the right retirement approach, leaders must consider not only the legal landscape of their  library, but the local job market, their recruitment objectives, and their retention goals.  The final approach should not only support the library’s plan of service and vision for its mission, but comply with all relevant law.  To ensure this, the plan and final documents should be evaluated by both leadership, as well as an HR professional and attorney.

Municipal public libraries crafting a retirement plan must work with local government;  this is because the retirement benefits they can offer flow from the municipality they are attached to[1].  For that reason, any municipal public library addressing retirement benefit issues should reach out to their municipality’s HR department and/or attorney. 

The member’s questions are a good jumping-off point for some general guidelines to this process.  To take them in order:

Are municipal public libraries obligated to provide retirement benefits for all employees?

No.  Per New York Retirement and Social Security System Law Title 2, Article 2, municipalities may resolve to participate and enroll their employees in the New York State & Local Retirement System (“NYSLRS”), but such resolution and enrollment is not compulsory. 

Once a municipality decides to enroll, the NY Comptroller’s Office helps with the initial assessment of costs[2].  After enrollment by the employer, precise rules govern which employees are eligible for what level of plan; a great summary of who qualifies, and how, is here: https://osc.state.ny.us/retire/word_and_pdf_documents/employers_files/employers-guide/section-5.pdf.

Does the library board need to approve a motion to provide retirement benefits for all employees or selected employees?

Yes and no.  A municipal public library’s enrollment in the NYSLRS flows through the enrolled municipality; [3] if the municipality is enrolled in the system, the (municipal public) library can participate.  That said, to emphasize employer autonomy, promote awareness, and ensure harmony of the retirement plan and benefits with other library operations, the board should be apprised of and vote on the retirement benefit, as well as its description within the employee manual and relevant policy.

NOTE: This “employer autonomy” aspect cannot be emphasized enough.  While great care should be taken by library leadership to coordinate certain employment-related matters with the municipality, a municipal public library SHOULD NEVER SURRENDER OR IGNORE THEIR AUTONOMY AS THE EMPLOYER.  There are a great many opinions[4] of the NY Comptroller (the go-to for municipal governance and budget issues) that emphasize the importance of this notion; it is a critical consideration and one deserving of a great deal of board attention and foresight (and professional input).

Does the number of [employee]hours pertain?

There are very precise formulas and enrolling, qualifying, reporting, and claiming NYSLRS retirement benefits[5], and employee hours are most definitely a part of those formulas. 

Hours are only a small piece of the puzzle, though.  The bigger parts are the details leadership will explore as they identify, and develop, a retirement benefit that supports the strategic direction and mission of their library.  That is a project that will take many hours of thoughtful work and exploration…but if undertaken with the right players, will bring great benefits.[6]

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

I have good news, and bad news. 

First, the bad news: most of the legal factors involved do not support this type of “job share.” 

Now, for the good news: the type of capacity-adding at the heart of the member’s question is feasible…with a slightly different legal structure.

What are the legal steps to creating such an arrangement?  For chartered libraries, they are numerous and intricate, but considering the goal (added service), the work might be worth it. 

Here are the factors to consider:

1.  The libraries’ chartered identity

The question cites a potential collaboration between a municipal and an association library.  Just in that coupling, there are issues, since depending on entities’ size and type, the institutions will have different staffing requirements.  When considering a capacity-adding staffing model, those requirements should be kept in mind at all times.

2.  The libraries’ bylaws and staffing policies

Staffing requirements and other factors impacting staffing might be recited in the libraries’ bylaws and policies.  So those documents, too, should be factored into this exercise.

3.  The libraries’ plan(s) of service

Does the resulting staffing schema fit into their respective plans of service? 

4.  Labor law details, such as workers’ comp, unemployment, FMLA, and ADA

Here is where the technical nitty-gritty, and the concerns that generally bar “shared” staff between separate entities, starts.  Whenever an employee is brought on to work at more than one legal entity, it is important to confirm who would actually be the employer, so the arrangement complies with state and federal labor regulations. 

One example of why this is important is workers’ compensation.  Per New York state law, if a worker sustains an injury on the job, that worker is covered by “comp,” and the employer is indemnified for (almost) any personal injury claim.  This protects both the employee (who gets some wage/salary continuance) and the employer (who generally does not face additional liability for the injury).  In a truly “shared” employee arrangement, with debatably two (or more) employers, the resulting ambiguity could result in a contested or denied coverage claim.

Another example of how a “dual employer” arrangement could be risky is revealed by  considering the American with Disabilities Act (ADA).  Under the ADA, employers are responsible for providing employees with reasonable accommodations for permanent and temporary disabilities; failure to do so can result in serious liability (and fines).  But with a “shared” worker, it can be tough to know who would have that responsibility…and be responsible for failing to follow the law.

There are many more reasons along these lines.

5.  Salary equity and benefits-related details

This is a critical one, because employees who are not treated equitably in comparison to other employees can have an array of legal claims.  Examples abound: If one library offers more paid time off than the other, how do the libraries offer the “shared” employee a fair and legally compliant arrangement?  If the libraries have different systems for evaluation and promotion, how does the employee advance?  If one library is found to be treating a particular class of employee unfairly, does that impact the other library?  While minimal staffing at the employing institutions might limit some of these concerns, even if there is one other part-time staffer to compare to, ambiguity could turn into liability.

6.  The actual legal relationship between the libraries and the “shared” employee

From the legal perspective, this is where the rubber hits the road.  For the reasons set out above (and many others), it would be almost impossible for both libraries be “joint,” employers: even if possible, it would likely be too risky.  But with another legal relationship, this resource-sharing might be feasible.

What is that “legal relationship?”  Well, it would depend, but the most feasible solution would likely be one library hiring an employee specifically to add to the capacity of other libraries.  In this model, there would be no “shared,” employment; rather, the first library would offer their employees as extra capacity on a contractual basis. 

In such a “Capacity Contract” scenario, money paid by the second (or third) library would not be a salary/benefit contribution, but rather, a fee for services (that happened to help pay for the salary and benefits of a full-time librarian).  The relationship would need to be carefully set out in a detailed contract and hiring documents that confirmed how any performance evaluation, employee discipline, civil rights, personal injury, and other claims would be handled.  And the factors I list above (starting with the identity of both libraries, and considering the various regulatory, bylaw, and policy obligations they have) would have to be assessed to see if it was even feasible.  Most critical would be: is adding to the capacity of others consistent with the hiring library’s plan of service?

With careful planning by leadership and trustees,[1]and input from an attorney and HR professional, this type of “shared” staffing could be built.  The end result would be:

• a careful documented analysis of the relevant factors;
• a carefully developed job description for the capacity-adding employee;
• a contract between the library or system providing the additional resource and the library served. 
• Hopefully, many more patrons served!

As I said at the beginning, this could be a fair amount of work.  But if it provides a small library with access to specific expertise and a diversity of talent it might otherwise not be able to afford, it could be worth it.  Just approach the details with care.

Thank you for this important question.