We are a school district public library planning a capital project. The question is whether or not the project has to be approved by a public vote. We have been given money from our assemblyman towards the cost of the construction of one item in the plan. The remainder of the funds will be from the Friends of the Library, a foundation that is raising money in memory of two people and other private donations. We are not asking for tax dollars for the project.
There are a few scenarios where a capital project, such as a renovation, could start with a vote of the electorate of a school district library. If the project is subject to a bond, requires a tax levy increase, or is somehow tied to a referendum, the voters' go-ahead might be needed before work can begin. In addition, if a municipality or district was deeding over a gift of real property, that could require a public vote, as well.
However, in the scenario described by the member, the money is "in the bank" and is not conditioned on obtaining further funds from the taxpayers and no additional real property needs to be purchased or funds need to be levied or raised.
With that, while in library law I make it a rule to "never say never" in this case, I don't see a need for a public vote. Just follow the rules of procurement!
 Which is how the phrase "public vote" is used in the question.
 "Work" has a variety of meanings in this context; it could include hiring an architect, or purchasing real property, or putting an actual shovel in the ground.
 As with other major purchases by public libraries, compliance with competitive bidding requirements in capital projects is key, even if the library is using donated funds. For more on this, visit https://www.osc.state.ny.us/files/local-government/publications/pdf/seekingcompetition.pdf.
Our by-laws name certain committees as committees of the corporation --- "No such committee shall have the authority to bind the board. Members of such committees of the corporation, who may be non-trustees, unless otherwise designated, shall be appointed by the President."
Can the non-trustee members of a committee vote if one is called for in the committee? It seems like they could because the committee can't bind the board, however we could see where their vote within a committee might mean that something isn't brought to the full board.
Related to this, should we amend the by-laws to specify them as voting/non-voting members of committees?
This reply will answer the questions up-front, and then tackle the concern about the full board not seeing a matter since it was voted on in committee in the "background and commentary" section.
1. Can the non-trustee members of a committee vote if one is called for in the committee?
Yes, if a library board has a committee with non-trustee members, those non-trustee members can vote.
2. Should we amend the by-laws to specify them as voting/non-voting members of committees?
No, there is no need to amend the bylaws. If the non-trustees are properly appointed committee members, they may vote. If the non-trustees are not actual committee members but are instead there in an advisory capacity, they should not be referred to as "members" in the first place, and the appointment letter should make that clear.
And now, for some background and commentary.
Back in 2014, the New York Not-for-Profit Corporation law was amended to create two types of board committee:
As the member points out, "Committees of the Corporation" are committees that--while they might work hard on matters of great importance to the library--cannot "bind" the board...meaning, they can't make "official" decisions final (authorizing a budget, signing a contract, or voting to hire a director).
"Committees of the Board," on the other hand, are authorized to "bind" the board in certain matters, including investments, endowments, employment, and some matters relating to real property.
While this "Committees of the ______" change was quietly revolutionary in many not-for-profit circles, it was already somewhat familiar territory for libraries, because the Education Law already authorized them to have an "Executive Committee" to "transact business of the corporation" between meetings. In other words, libraries were already used to designating committees with express and binding authority. This just gave them more options to bring on more participants who were not trustees.
Now, while "Committees of the Corporation" may not be not tasked with the Really Big Decisions, as the member points out, they can still do very important work.
For example: let's say a library has created a "Public Relations Committee" ("of the Corporation") responsible for monitoring and identifying tactics for the library's presence in traditional and social media. The committee doesn't sign contracts or even write press releases; it simply monitors and issues advice, meeting virtually once a month to review the library's media footprint and track its various metrics.
Based on some observations, the committee decides the library should adopt a "Social Media Policy." Since the committee can't "bind the board," they can't vote to adopt the policy, but if they vote to do so, they can:
Now, here's where the member's concern comes in: How does the full board know this work is being done?
The critical work of committees "of the corporation"--even if they are not "binding" the board--should be connected to that of the full board by a routine report (or meeting minutes) that are "received and filed" by the full board subsequent to every committee meeting. That way, whether or not the committee votes, the board is aware of its work, and what is in the pipeline. Committee work should never take place in a vacuum; it should always be linked to the operations of the board by reports and minutes.
A high-functioning library board operates like an orchestra--different sections may rehearse separately, and sometimes, there may even be a prima donna moment or two--but the end goal should be harmony.
A board's various committee types may have different functions, compositions, and authority, but they are all part of that system. Thank you for a great question that showcases their differences and value.
 A valid concern.
 They can't do everything, though, so proceed with care!
 A wild bunch who brandish the word "fiduciary" the way some people wield the term "linebacker."
 The special focus of a PR committee, by the way, is why a library may want to bring on some non-trustee "ringers" to help with specific issues (a building committee is another great committee where you might want someone for a non-specific set of skills).
 Or at least, whenever the committee meets. Some committees only meet and act once a year; obviously, that committee only needs to submit one report!
Our public, municipal library wants to seek funding through a school board levy. The boundaries of the school district we’re petitioning are outside (but include) our municipality. Are there any legal impediments to a public, municipal library going on the school district ballot? We have reached out to New York State Ed’s Division of Library Development and NYLA, but seek a lawyer's perspective.
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, and school districts are one of them. In addition to facilitating school funding through those taxes (the school budget “levy”), districts are empowered to raise a separate amount for “library purposes.”
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).
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.
Third, the amount of taxes attributable to library purposes must be separately stated on each statement of taxes. 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, or 2) a petition directly from the voters. Since 2007, the precise amount of any proposed levy has to be endorsed by the library’s board (this is so competing or even contrary funding resolutions can’t get on the same ballot). 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.
This power can be used to the benefit of any public library: municipal, special district, school district, free association, etc. This is true even if the precise boundaries of the school district and the library’s chartered area of service don’t match up.
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. 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, 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.”
Voters, of course, are free to reject the request for support (they can also bring a petition to cease the levy). 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 (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. 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 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 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 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.
 They are listed in New York’s Real Property Tax Law, which is a fun read if you are lucky enough to be amused by tax law.
 See NY Real Property Tax Law Article 13.
 See NY Education Law Section 259(1)(a).
 New York Real Property Tax Law, §1322 (1) and §1324.
 See New York Comptroller Opinion 92-28, as well as Education Law §259(1)(a) and Real Property Tax Law, §1322 (1) and §1324.
 New York Real Property Tax Law, §1322 (1) and §1324.
 See Education Law §259(1)(a), and for some good color commentary on the process, see New York State Education Commissioner Decision 15,662, which established that once the tax has been turned over to the library, the taxing authority can’t demand it be returned, even if they have to give a taxpayer a correcting refund.
 Education Law §2035(2). To see how this plays out in the field, check out Education Commissioner Decision # 13,891.
 See Bill S03542, 2007.
 §239(1)(a), again!
 This is due to the law being amended in 2007. The objectives of the amendment are detailed in the legislative “memo” for A05107 (2007). The impact of the changes is also discussed in Education Commissioner Decision 16,765. Buckle up if you explore this avenue…there is some quibbling.
 This broad interpretation of the word “library” as used in Education Law §259(1)(a) was established in New York State Education Commissioner Decision 12,423, regarding Earlville Free Library, in 1990. Although §259(1)(a) was amended in 2007, the approach of “Earlville” as the case in known in library circles, was re-affirmed by the Education Commissioner in 2015 (see Decision #16,765, regarding Jamesville-DeWitt Central School District).
 As defined by Education law §253(2), that term includes any library established for “free public purposes by official action of a municipality or district or the legislature….” Some time is spent on this definition in the “Earlville” decision, referenced above. Note that the definition does exclude libraries within technical, professional, and public schools.
 This was also established in Education Commissioner Decision 12,423, regarding Earlville Free Library (1990).
 To say nothing of cooperative and federated libraries.
 You’re seeing a lot of citations to the Commissioner here. That’s because per Education Law §2037, the Commissioner with “exclusive original jurisdiction over all disputes concerning the validity of any district meeting or election.” See Education Commissioner Decision 14,571 (2001).
 Appeal of The Board of Trustees of the Earlville Free Library, 1990 Op Comr Educ No 12423. It is worth noting that while §259 was amended in 2007 (17 years after Earlville) this principle was upheld in 2015 in Decision 16,765,regardingtheJamesville-DeWitt Central School District.
 This is broken down in a great Comptroller Opinion: 1981 N.Y. Comp. LEXIS 726, 1981 N.Y. St. Comp. 176.
 See New York State Commissioner of Education Decision 15,002 “Appeal of Beaver Falls Library” (2003), applying Education Law §259(1).
 Check out their guide “School Districts and Taxes for Public and Association Libraries: How the Partnership Works” at www.nysl.nysed.gov/libdec/libs/sdtaxes.htim.
 I would spend a paragraph or two on what “the unexpected” is, but of course, we can’t expect it! That said, a good look at Education Commissioner Decisions numbers listed in these vast footnotes answer can give you a flavor.
 I just finished his autobiography, “Man of the House.” An interesting read, and a great primer for anyone wanting an abject lesson about local, state, and national politics.
 Taking care to abide by all restrictions and best practices for libraries and political activity.