MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

Libraries likely do not have any statute of limitations for collecting overdue or replacement fines because the law does not consider library fines as “debts.” As such, any change to how long a “debt” may be collected does not matter for libraries. This privilege extends to third parties who collect fines on behalf of libraries. Let’s dive in deeper to help understand why.

            In February of 2019, a different WNYLRC member had a question regarding libraries and patron bankruptcy. Part of that answer addressed whether bankruptcy discharged replacement and overdue fines due to the library. We advised the member that it was likely that overdue and replacement fines would not be discharged in bankruptcy because libraries do not engage in the types of “business dealings” that can create a “debt” in the first place. That answer was taking case law on debt collection and applying it to the bankruptcy context. Here, the same case law is much more directly applicable. Understanding the full picture, however, requires a step back to examine why these Federal cases are relevant to interpreting a recent New York State law.

            In 2022, New York’s Consumer Credit Fairness Act (“CCFA”) went into effect. One of the provisions of the CCFA was reduction in the statute of limitations, from six to three years, for most types of consumer debt. The types of transactions the CCFA applies to are “consumer credit transactions.” That term is defined as “a transaction wherein credit is extended to an individual and the money, property, or service which is the subject of the transaction is primarily for personal, family or household purposes.”

            There is no case law or official guidance in New York that directly addresses libraries. There are, however, interpretations of federal statutes, such as the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), which use nearly identical terms to the New York statute. Under the FDCPA, a “debt” is defined as “[a]ny obligation or alleged obligation of a consumer to pay money arising out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.” Almost identical to New York’s definition under the CCFA. Given these similarities, and that most state debt-collection statutes are modeled on the analogous federal statutes, looking at federal interpretations is persuasive.

            Tierney v. Unique is a 2018 federal case originating in South Carolina. There, a collection agency attempting to collect library fines on behalf of a library in Charleston was sued under the FDCPA. The court ruled in favor of the collection agency, holding that

“Plaintiff has failed to allege a proper claim, as he has not sufficiently pled that he has been the object of collection activity arising from ‘consumer debt.’ The borrowing of library materials, and the failure to return or timely return them which results in library fines, does not constitute such a ‘consumer debt.’”

            Notably, in Tierney, the library had added an administrative cost to the fines to offset the expense and having to offload the collection’s effort to a third party. This did not seem to affect the judge’s decision. Tierney also cited a 1997 case from the Northern District of Illinois which provided a full explanation of why library fines are different from consumer debt and credit transactions. This is the case we previously explored in the bankruptcy context. In Riebe v. Juergensmeyer, the Court wrote that 

“we agree with Defendants’ assertion that “public libraries do not engage in business transactions with patrons -- they lend public property to patrons, free of charge.” . . . A library is not a center of commerce but rather a “place dedicated to quiet, to knowledge, and to beauty,” and “a place to test or expand ideas . . . .” . . . Moreover, “an adequate library is essential for the dissemination of knowledge.” . . . “Its very purpose is to aid in the acquisition of knowledge through reading, writing and quiet contemplation.” . . . Unfortunately, when one fails to return library materials, he frustrates this purpose by depriving the public the full-use of the tremendous resources that a library has to offer. . . Consequently, the court finds that the borrowing of a library book is not the type of conduct that the FDCPA considers a transaction. As such, the ensuing obligation to pay for failure to return the book did not create a “debt” under the FDCPA.”

            The takeaway is this: Libraries probably do not have any statute of limitations whatsoever for overdue and replacement fines—whether collected on their own behalf or sold to collection agencies. There are some limitations. For instance, if the library charges an upfront fee for a DVD—that could be outside the scope. For run-of-the-mill overdue and replacement fines, however, courts seem to say that libraries are free to collect such fines by whatever means and by whatever timeline they see fit. Since most library fines are not “debt,” the statutes of limitations that apply to “debt” are simply inapplicable.

            There are two caveats to this answer. First, this reasoning likely applies to commonplace overdue and replacement fines, but not necessarily to every conceivable fine that may be imposed. As such, your library may wish to check its fine/fee/replacement policies and its collection contracts with collectors, to ensure they do not unknowingly create an enforcement limit where it would otherwise not apply. Members who want to ensure their specific policies and contracts do not create limits should confer with their attorneys for a written opinion.

            Second, the fact that a certain action is legal does not mean that it is the right course of action for a particular library. Having libraries as a “free” resource has always been a goal in New York – and the Education Law which establishes the legal footing for libraries expressly states as such. In order to further this goal, some libraries have chosen to move towards a “fine-free” model. A recent article in the American Library Association delves into why this model may be becoming more common. That being said, every library is different, and fines may play a bigger or smaller role in maintaining core services. Any decision about fines and how aggressively to pursue them is ultimately a balancing act that each library must decide for themselves.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

This question is being answered by guest writer and LOSA[1] associate attorney Ben Sachs. 

Thanks Ben!

Many not-for-profit boards impose term limits on trustees. According to a leading source of information on not-for-profit boards,^[2] 87.5% of boards have terms, and 54% of those with terms have term limits. Some advantages of term limits include ensuring a source of new ideas and perspectives, avoiding fatigue, breaking up entrenched interests, granting an opportunity for larger community engagement, and more flexibility to adjust to changing needs.

With respect to trustees of public libraries, some aspects are controlled be New York State law. For instance, Education Law § 260 provides that public libraries must have between five and fifteen trustees,^[3] the terms of office must be either three or five years, and the terms must be arranged “as nearly as possible” to have “one-third or one-fifth of the members [] expire annually.”^[4]

In addition, certain kinds of libraries have restrictions on the terms of trustees. Specifically, cooperative library systems prohibit five-year trustees from serving more than two consecutive terms, and three-year trustees from serving more than three consecutive terms.^[5] Reference and research library system trustees only are permitted five-year trustees, and as such they are only allowed to have two consecutive terms.^[6]

Outside of the above-mentioned provisions, New York law is open-ended with respect to trustees. Not-For-Profit Corporation Law § 703 permits entities to specify terms of trustees in any manner established in the bylaws or articles of corporation. Thus, it is perfectly acceptable to impose mandatory breaks after a certain number of terms.

If you would like advice about what structure may be the best for your library, or if you have specific questions about trustee appointment, election, terms, or other issues that pertain to your exact type of library, be sure to reach out to an attorney who may offer more directed counsel.

Thank you for the opportunity to answer your question!

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

This is a timely question, because New York's Committee on Open Government (the authority on all things FOIL), has recently stated[1] that not only do public libraries have to follow FOIL, but cooperative public library systems have to, as well. So, the answer will be useful for libraries and library systems[2] alike.

NOTE: For those of you who need a quick primer on FOIL to get the most of this question: FOIL is the state law requiring timely public access to public agency records (with exceptions). As you can imagine, complying with this obligation requires a clear understanding of what constitutes a "public agency" is, what a "record" is, and what any exceptions might be.

FOIL defines a public agency record as “any information kept, held, filed, produced or reproduced by, with or for an agency or the state legislature, in any physical form whatsoever…” FOIL §86(4).

There is the potential for financial costs for agencies that fail to make timely and compliant FOIL disclosures.[3]

Further guidance on FOIL is available at https://opengovernment.ny.gov/freedom-information-law.

Before we dive deeply into this question, aside from the above small primer on FOIL, it is necessary to consider what "social media" is, in the FOIL context.

When websites were first developed and published by local governments (and libraries), the phrase "social media" was not used to refer to them.

Since that time, government agency use of not only web sites, but more socially interactive utilities like Facebook and Twitter, has exploded. From public "state of emergency" announcements via Twitter, to town council meetings streamed live via Facebook, government use of social media is rampant.

Despite this explosion, the phrase "social media", as used today, is not legally defined. Most critically, the phrase "social media" is not found in the LGS-1[4], which in New York's comprehensive list of record "types" that are subject to mandatory retention.[5]

Among other things, this means there is no one catch-all obligation to retain (and thus have them around to have to disclose) records posted via social media. Which means that instead of focusing on the medium (social media) we have to focus on the message (the "type" of record the social media is being used to create and/or transmit).

While certainly not the exclusive "type", the LGS-1 category social media is mostly used to create and/or transmit is type #68: "Public Relations".

Here is how the LGS-1 categorizes public relation records and sets their retention periods:

Public Relations 68 CO2 11, MU1 11, ED1 11, MI1 11

Official copy of publication, including newsletter, press release, published report, calendar, bulletin, recording, homepage or other website file, educational or informational program material prepared by or for local government, and associated consent forms.

NOTE: Specific publications are listed in other places in this Schedule. Before using this item to determine the minimum legal retention for a publication, determine if that publication is covered by a more specific item.

a

Publications which contain significant information or substantial evidence of plans and directions for government activities, or publications where critical information is not contained in other publications: RETENTION: PERMANENT

b

Publications where critical information is also contained in other publications or reports, publications which document routine activities, publications which contain only routine information, or publications (such as webpages) that Local Government Schedule (LGS-1) General Administration 15 facilitate access to government information on the Internet: RETENTION: 0 after no longer needed

NOTE: Appraise these records for historical significance prior to disposition. Records with historical value should be retained permanently. Local governments should consider permanent retention of samples of publications covered by part "b" of the above item. Contact the State Archives for additional advice in this area.

What does this quote mean? Among other things, unless a library is using a social media publication to be the "official copy" of news, it does not have to retain the copy.

And if the copy of the social media post is not retained, it is not available to be disclosed per FOIL (although the official copy might).

So, with all that established, let's re-visit the member's questions:

For public libraries that must comply with Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), how does FOIL impact our organization's use of social media? What sort of social media records can be FOIL-ed and what are some best practices for using social media in regards to FOIL?

Considering that the LGS-1 confirms that libraries are not obligated to retain everything posted on social media, but FOIL requires that if the record exists and is subject to FOIL, the library must disclose it, I will boil the answers down to 4 very simple things:

1. The library should have a FOIL compliance policy.

Why?

This will ensure the library has the right system and designated personnel for receiving, evaluating, replying to, and considering appeals of FOIL requests.

For more information on putting a policy in place, see the "model rules for agencies" at https://opengovernment.ny.gov/freedom-information-law#model-rules-for-agencies.

2. Social media should never be the sole copy of a notice or publication put out by a library.

Why?

If it is, the social media content may be subject to a "permanent" or a defined period of retention, even though the library doesn't control the means of publication (thus creating more work to properly retain the copy). This means that when the record is requested under FOIL, the Library had better be able to provide it, even if the social media provider is no longer in business, or for some reason, the content is no longer in existence.

3. Every public library[6] should have a records retention policy that tracks its obligations as set forth in the LGS-1 and sets the retention periods and purge times for routine records.

Why?

First, it's the law.[7]

Second, using the LGS-1 forces your library to consider what "type" of records it is generating and what retention periods apply to them--including records generated on and/or being pushed out by social media.

Third, but just as critically, it will encourage your library to purge or formally archive records no longer actively needed, minimizing the content to be disclosed under FOIL.

Fourth, it will better position your library's FOIL officer to timely respond to requests.

And fifth (but of the most relevance to the questions) it will enable your library to determine what, if any, of its social media content must be retained and thus ready for disclosure under FOIL (hopefully not much).

4. Whenever possible, the library should use its own media for primary communications, only relying on social media for secondary "boosting" of content.

Why?

This will make sure the primary copy the library is obligated to retain (if the LGS-1 requires retention) is controlled by the Library, making it simpler to fulfill a FOIL request.

5. The Library should only use its own social media (not accounts belonging to employees) for creating library records.

Why?

Because if the library relies on social media owned by employees and doesn't take care to generate in-house primary copies of certain records, the content generated by the employee could be subject to FOIL (for an example of how that can happen, see the COOG commentary FOIL AO 19732, found at https://docsopengovernment.dos.ny.gov/coog/ftext/f19732.htm).

Still with me? Have I lost you in the morass of FOIL and LGS-1? Hang in there!

I realize this is getting rather complex. So here are some practical examples of social media messages a library might post, and how that post might play out under the lens of FOIL, LGS-1, and other factors.

When considering the examples above, and the member's questions, the important take-aways are:

• Know what records the library has; and
• Have a good system for disclosing those records upon request (if they are subject to FOIL).

In each of these examples, it should be clear that reliance on third-party social media to house the sole copy of the FOIL-able record is not the optimal way to do business. On the flip side, no fancy software is needed to archive contemporaneous social media records; rather, libraries should be using their record retention policies to determine how their records are generated, and how they are managed to be ready for disclosure under FOIL.

With a little planning, this can be done economically and in a way that furthers the library's commitment to information access and transparency

Thank you for hanging in there with me on this one! May all your FOIL requests be clear, and all your social media be impactful.

Below are the retention periods set by the LGS-1, specifically for libraries.

591 CO2 340, MU1 304, ED1 165, MI1 254

Incorporation, chartering and registration records: RETENTION: PERMANENT

592 CO2 341, MU1 305, ED1 158, MI1 255

Accession records: RETENTION: 1 year after accessioning procedure becomes obsolete NOTE: Some libraries accession manuscripts, rare books and special collections, but not their general library holdings. In these cases, the accession records need to be retained only for the kinds of materials still accessioned.

593 CO2 342, ED1 166, MI1 256

Informational copies of records prepared by and received from public library system, including but not limited to directories, minutes, budgets and reports: RETENTION: 0 after superseded or obsolete

594 MU1 306

Directory of public library system and member libraries, prepared by public library system (member library's copy): RETENTION: 0 after superseded or obsolete

595 Library card application records: RETENTION: 3 years after card expires or is inactive

596 CO2 343, MU1 307, ED1 159, MI1 257

Borrowing or loaning records: RETENTION: 0 after no longer needed

597

Interlibrary loan records, including requests to borrow or copy materials from other libraries, receipts for materials, copy logs, accounting records, and circulation records

a When no copies of original materials are requested: Local Government Schedule (LGS-1) Library/Library System RETENTION: 0 after no longer needed

b When copies of original materials are requested: RETENTION: 5 years after order is completed

598 CO2 344, MU1 308, ED1 160, MI1 258

Catalog of holdings

a Manuscript or published catalog: RETENTION: PERMANENT

b Continuously updated catalog: RETENTION: 0 after superseded or obsolete

599 CO2 345, MU1 309, ED1 161, MI1 259

Individual title purchase requisition which has been filled or found to be unfillable: RETENTION: 1 year

600 CO2 346, MU1 310, ED1 162, MI1 260

Records documenting selection of books and other library materials: RETENTION: 0 after no longer needed

601 CO2 347, MU1 311, ED1 163, MI1 261

Library material censorship and complaint records, including evaluations by staff, patrons' complaints and record of final decision: RETENTION: 6 years after last entry NOTE: Appraise these records for historical significance prior to disposition. Some library censorship records deal with serious constitutional issues and may have value for future research.

602 CO2 348, MU1 312, ED1 164, MI1 262

Patron's registration for use of rare, valuable or restricted non-circulating materials: RETENTION: 6 years

603

Program and exhibit file documenting planning and implementation of programs, services and exhibits sponsored or co-sponsored by the library, including but not limited to photographs, sketches, worksheets, publicity, brochures, exhibit catalogs, inventory lists, loan agreements, correspondence, attendance sheets or registration forms, and parental consent forms:

a Parental consent records: RETENTION: 6 years, or 3 years after child attains age 18, whichever is longer

NOTE: Photo release records are covered under item no. 68 in General Administration section. Local Government Schedule (LGS-1) Library/Library System 156 b Attendance sheets and registration forms, when no fee is charged: RETENTION: 0 after no longer needed c All other records: RETENTION: 6 years after exhibit closed or program ended NOTE: Appraise these records for historical significance or value for collections documentation prior to disposition. Some of these records may have continuing value for historical or other research and should be retained permanently. Contact the State Archives for additional advice.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

With the changes to the open meetings law and more attention on library leadership generally, now is a good time to think about the nuances of public library meeting agendas.

Since agendas have to be posted in advance, it is true that sometimes a board may have to make an 11th-hour change.

The typical ways to address the need to switch up the agenda, once it is set and published in advance as required by law, are:

1.  To use the "new business" section to add anything that wasn't announced in advance;

2.  For items on the agenda that, for whatever reason, must be removed/postponed or changed, to do it by motion, such as:

"RESOLVED: Due to the board still receiving active public comments, the comment period has been extended and the agenda item to review and discuss the comments on [TOPIC] is to be rescheduled to the next regular meeting of the board.

OR

"RESOLVED: Due to the confirmation that insurance will cover the damage, the emergency fundraising discussion is no longer needed."

There is no problem with also including on public notices "As board agendas and meeting notices are generally set one week in advance, the board may announce new business or change posted items, as warranted by circumstances and the best interests of the library."

The thing to avoid (because it can leave you open to criticism, not really a huge legal vulnerability) is "unofficial" changes to the agenda.  By using "new business" for unexpected items, and resolutions to change set items, the minutes will reflect proper adjustments that change the agenda.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

I won't tease the readers here; generally,[1] the answer is "no."

There are three reasons for this:

Reason 1: a public library director, unlike a library system treasurer and other local "public officers" isn't required by law to carry a bond.

Reason 2: If a public library has the right fiscal controls in place (meaning the director is never solely entrusted with fiscal authority--something that should never happen), there should be little risk of the type "bonding" is designed to mitigate.[2]

Reason 3: the majority of alleged wrong-doing by a public library director should be covered by a library's "Directors and Officers" and "General Liability" Insurance.

For this reason, while "bonding" is not required for most public library directors, a library having adequate insurance is critical.

This is why understanding the scope and costs of a library's "Directors & Officers Insurance," as well as its "General Liability" and "Premises Liability" policies, are critical annual tasks for a library board.

This type of assessment should happen every year with enough time to make sure the library can arrange new coverage if the answers are inadequate or the rates aren’t that competitive (no less than four months before renewal).

Questions to ask the broker should be based on a board's assessment of "what could go wrong?", and can include things such as:

Does our policy cover claims of discrimination, including sexual harassment?

Does our policy cover employee theft?

Does our policy cover alleged copyright and trademark infringement (or "advertising injury")?

Does our policy cover data breach of computers controlled by the library?[3]

What types of claims are excluded?[4]

What is the deductible?[5]

What is the process for reporting possible claims?

Insurance matters are complex and assessing coverage can present a lot of legal and industry jargon.

So, as a primer on the interrelationships and differences in "library world” between 'bonding," "insuring," "indemnifying," "hold harmless" and "Directors and Officers insurance" here is a short poem:

Library bonding, insurance, indemnifications...

What the heck are the differentiations?

Although the distinctions could fill a tome

Here are four rhymes to bring it home:

Director, officer, trustee...

should be insured against liability;

For anyone who with responsibility

The coverage can offer indemnity.

If your library will undertake construction

A performance bond should guarantee completion.

If you need to raise some building money

An approved "bond" can bring the honey.

For a library system treasurer[6]

An "undertaking" you must procure.

For all of these, routine review

Is something that a board should do.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

New York's Freedom of Information Law, or “FOIL”, applies to government agencies (including public libraries) but cannot be used to compel private companies (or individuals) to allow inspection or copying or records.

So, in the scenario described by the member, the private company employing the guard is not subject to FOIL, but the library is, as is the county, so information about the security company can be accessed.

Of course, that doesn't mean a person gets everything they might want, but it does mean that information about private companies working for public entities can be accessed.

We'll talk about this in more detail, but to illustrate my point, here is a short, one-act play:

CITIZEN (to security guard at public library): Who are you?!?! The Power of FOIL compels you!

SECURITY GUARD: Well, as you can see on my ID, my name is Phil. But I am not subject to FOIL.  Ask my boss.

CITIZEN (to Phil's private employer, whose company name and logo are on the ID): Who is that guy "Phil"?!? What's his last name and his qualifications?!? What does he get paid a year?!? The Power of FOIL compels you!

PRIVATE SECURITY COMPANY:  We're so glad you like Phil! We do, too. Unfortunately, we are not subject to FOIL, and we don't provide information about private employee to third parties.

CITIZEN (to the library): Your private security company is hiding information! Tell me everything about Phil! EVERYTHING!!! The Power of FOIL compels you!

LIBRARY (answering within 5 days): Your request is a bit broad, but we do have records relating to how we arranged the services of a security company through the County. Would you like to inspect those records, or be provided with copies?

CITIZEN (to the county): I don't just want to know "the arrangement," I want to know about Phil, the actual guy providing security at the Library!  Give me all the information you have on him!!! The Power of FOIL compels you!

COUNTY (replying within 5 days, and helping to narrow down the request): We are not quite sure what you're asking for, but we can definitely provide information about the security company. Do you want just the contract, or the complete procurement process, including their proposal?

[End Scene]

Of course, in this (hopefully fictional) scenario, the citizen asking for the information might not be able to get (such as what "Phil" is making per hour, or Phil's address, or Phil's resume). But if the information the person is really hoping to access falls into the accessible materials held by an entity subject to FOIL (like a county or a public library), they will hopefully get what they need.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where many times requests under FOIL can be perceived as aggressive. And sometimes the FOIL request is clearly being made by a person with an axe to grind.[1]

That's one of the many prices, to be cheerfully paid, of living in a democracy. Good government thrives on transparency, and prompt disclosures show respect for the public, as well as competence.

In my experience, the best way for an entity subject to FOIL to de-escalate any hostility accompanying a FOIL request is to:

• Always require that employees be treated with respect;
• Have a clearly articulated and easily located FOIL policy;
• Have clarity within the organization as to who is responsible for requests and appeals under FOIL[2];
• Maintain records in such a way that FOIL requests are easy and economical to fulfill;
• Allocate time and budget to train the person responsible for responding to FOIL request, so they know what to do (and when to consult a lawyer).

All of the above-listed bullets can be achieved through a policy that sets out the proper timelines and procedures for following the law.

The great thing about a FOIL request being submitted to a library is that if there is one thing librarians know how to do, it's how to help people find information. So, unlike other "agencies" subject to FOIL, where records management and disclosure can be perceived as a hassle, in some ways, fulfilling a FOIL request is just business as usual: enable access.

The below "Template Public Library FOIL Policy" is based on the model policy supplied by the New York State Committee on Open Government (the COOG), found at https://opengovernment.ny.gov/freedom-information-law.  Since it is right from the COOG (with a few added bells and whistles from me), it checks all the boxes on mandatory reply times, providing copies, and how to reply to a request.

Having a policy, and a posting a summary setting out how to request a library record under FOIL, is a good way to diffuse any tension underlying a FOIL request.

As with any template, before a public library's board passes a version based on this one, it is best to have it reviewed by your library's lawyer.

Section 1: Purpose and scope of this FOIL Compliance Policy:

The NAME Library (the "Library") believes in the right of the People to know the process of decision-making and to have access to the documents and information underlying the operations of the Library.  

In addition, a part of the mission of the Library is to enable access to information the public is entitled to.

To that end, the Library shall furnish to the public the information and records required by the Freedom of Information Law, using this policy to enable, effect, and document such compliance.

Section 2: Designation of Library Records Access Officer:

1. The Library designates the following person(s) as "Records Access Officer(s)":

Job title or name:  _____________________________________________

Business address: _____________________________________________

Email address: ________________________________________________

2. The Records Access Officer is responsible for ensuring appropriate library response to public requests for access to records, and shall ensure that the Library:
   1. Maintains an up-to-date subject matter list of type of Library records, based on the categories of documents in the LGS-1[3].
   2. Assist persons seeking public library records to identify the records sought, if necessary, and when appropriate, indicate the manner in which the records are filed, retrieved or generated to assist persons in reasonably describing records.
   3. Contact persons seeking records when a request is voluminous or when locating the records involves substantial effort, so that personnel may ascertain the nature of records of primary interest and attempt to reasonably reduce the volume of records requested.
   4. Upon locating the records, take one of the following actions:
      1. Make records available for inspection; OR,
      2. Deny access to the records in whole or in part and explain in writing the reasons therefor.
   5. Upon request for copies of records:
   1. Make a copy available upon payment or offer to pay established fees, if any, in accordance with Section 8 of this Policy; OR,
   2. Permit the requester to copy those records under appropriate supervision to ensure the records' physical integrity.
   3. Upon request, certify that a record is a true copy; and
   1. The NAME Library is not the custodian for such records; OR,
   2. The records of which NAME Library is a custodian cannot be found after diligent search.
   3. Upon failure to locate records, certify that;

Section 3: Location

Records shall be available for public inspection and copying at:

(Location)____________________________________

(Address)____________________________________

____________________________________________

____________________________________________

____________________________________________

Section 4: Hours for public inspection:

Requests for public access to records shall be accepted and records produced during all hours the Library is regularly open for business, however, timing of fulfillment will be impacted by staff capacity.

Section 5: Requests for public access to records

1. A written request may be required, but oral requests may be accepted when records are readily available.
2. If records are maintained on the internet, the requester shall be informed that the records are accessible via the internet and in printed form either on paper or other information storage medium.
3. A response shall be given within five business days of receipt of a request by:
   1. informing a person requesting records that the request or portion of the request does not reasonably describe the records sought, including direction, to the extent possible, that would enable that person to request records reasonably described; OR,
   2. granting or denying access to records in whole or in part; OR,
   3. acknowledging the receipt of a request in writing, including an approximate date when the request will be granted or denied in whole or in part, which shall be reasonable under the circumstances of the request and shall not be more than twenty business days after the date of the acknowledgment, or if it is known that circumstances prevent disclosure within twenty business days from the date of such acknowledgment, providing a statement in writing indicating the reason for inability to grant the request within that time and a date certain, within a reasonable period under the circumstances of the request, when the request will be granted in whole or in part; OR,
   4. if the receipt of request was acknowledged in writing and included an approximate date when the request would be granted in whole or in part within twenty business days of such acknowledgment, but circumstances prevent disclosure within that time, providing a statement in writing within twenty business days of such acknowledgment specifying the reason for the inability to do so and a date certain, within a reasonable period under the circumstances of the request, when the request will be granted in whole or in part.
4. In determining a reasonable time for granting or denying a request under the circumstances of a request, the Library shall consider the volume of a request, the ease or difficulty in locating, retrieving or generating records, the complexity of the request, the need to review records to determine the extent to which they must be disclosed, the number of requests received by the agency, and similar factors that bear on the ability to grant access to records promptly and within a reasonable time.
5. A failure to comply with the time limitations described herein shall constitute a denial of a request that may be appealed. Such failure shall include situations in which the Records Access Officer (or other employee):
1. fails to grant access to the records sought, deny access in writing or acknowledge the receipt of a request within five business days of the receipt of a request; OR,
2. acknowledges the receipt of a request within five business days but fails to furnish an approximate date when the request will be granted or denied in whole or in part; OR,
3. furnishes an acknowledgment of the receipt of a request within five business days with an approximate date for granting or denying access in whole or in part that is unreasonable under the circumstances of the request; OR,
4. fails to respond to a request within a reasonable time after the approximate date given or within twenty business days after the date of the acknowledgment of the receipt of a request; OR,
5. determines to grant a request in whole or in part within twenty business days of the acknowledgment of the receipt of a request, but fails to do so, unless the agency provides the reason for its inability to do so in writing and a date certain within which the request will be granted in whole or in part; OR,
6. does not grant a request in whole or in part within twenty business days of the acknowledgment of the receipt of a request and fails to provide the reason in writing explaining the inability to do so and a date certain by which the request will be granted in whole or in part; OR,
7. responds to a request, stating that more than twenty business days is needed to grant or deny the request in whole or in part and provides a date certain within which that will be accomplished, but such date is unreasonable under the circumstances of the request.

Section 6: Subject matter list

1. The Library shall maintain a reasonably detailed current list by subject matter of all records in its possession, based on the categories of records set forth in the LGS-1, whether or not records are available pursuant to subdivision two of Section eighty-seven of the Public Officers Law.
2. The "Subject Matter List shall be sufficiently detailed to permit identification of the category of the record sought; the LGS-1 breakdown and description of record categories is the default system the Library shall use.  Whenever possible, this Subject Matter List shall accord with the categories in the Library's [Document Retention and Destruction Policy OR equivalent].
3. The Subject Matter List shall be updated annually by POSITION. The most recent update shall appear on the first page of the subject matter list.

Section 7: Denial of access to records

1. Denial of access to records shall be in writing stating the reason therefor and advising the requester of the right to appeal to the individual or body established to determine appeals, [who or which] shall be identified by name, title, business address and business phone number.
2. If requested records are not provided promptly, as required in Section 5 of this policy, such failure shall also be deemed a denial of access.
3. The following "FOIL Appeal Officer" shall determine appeals regarding denial of access to records under the Freedom of Information Law:
   Name: ___________________________________________________

Title or position: ____________________________________________

Address for FOIL purposes:___________________________________

_________________________________________________________

Phone number:____________________________________________
 

4. Any person denied access to records may appeal within thirty days of a denial.
5. The time for deciding an appeal by the individual or body designated to determine appeals shall commence upon receipt of a written appeal identifying:
   1. the date and location of requests for records;
   2. a description, to the extent possible, of the records that were denied; and
   3. the name and return address of the person denied access.
6. A failure to determine an appeal within ten business days of its receipt by granting access to the records sought or fully explaining the reasons for further denial in writing shall constitute a denial of the appeal.
1. The person or body designated to determine appeals shall transmit to the Committee on Open Government copies of all appeals upon receipt of appeals. Such copies shall be addressed to:
   
   Committee on Open Government
   Department of State
   One Commerce Plaza
   99 Washington Avenue, Suite 650
   Albany, NY 12231
    
2. The person or body designated to determine appeals shall inform the appellant and the Committee on Open Government of its determination in writing within ten business days of receipt of an appeal. The determination shall be transmitted to the Committee on Open Government in the same manner as set forth subdivision (f) of this section.

Section 8: Fees

1. There shall be no fee charged for:
   1. inspection of records;
   2. search for records; or
   3. any certification pursuant to this part.
2. Copies may be provided without charging a fee.
3. Fees for copies may be charged, provided that:
1. the fee for copying records shall not exceed 25 cents per page for photocopies not exceeding 9 by 14 inches. This section shall not be construed to mandate the raising of fees where agencies or municipalities in the past have charged less that 25 cents for such copies;
2. the fee for photocopies of records in excess of 9 x 14 inches shall not exceed the actual cost of reproduction; or
3. an agency has the authority to redact portions of a paper record and does so prior to disclosure of the record by making a photocopy from which the proper redactions are made.
1. an amount equal to the hourly salary attributed to the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required to prepare a copy of the requested record, but only when more than two hours of the employee’s time is necessary to do so; and
2. the actual cost of the storage devices or media provided to the person making the request in complying with such request; or
3. the actual cost to the agency of engaging an outside professional service to prepare a copy of a record, but only when an agency’s information technology equipment is inadequate to prepare a copy, and if such service is used to prepare the copy.
4. The fee an agency may charge for a copy of any other record is based on the actual cost of reproduction and may include only the following:
5. When the Library has the ability to retrieve or extract a record or data maintained in a computer storage system with reasonable effort, or when doing so requires less employee time than engaging in manual retrieval or redactions from non-electronic records, the Library shall retrieve or extract such record or data electronically. In such case, the Library may charge a fee in accordance with Section 8.3 above.
6. The Library shall inform a person requesting a record of the estimated cost of preparing a copy of the record if more than two hours of an agency employee’s time is needed, or if it is necessary to retain an outside professional service to prepare a copy of the record.
7. The Library may require that the fee for copying or reproducing a record be paid in advance of the preparation of such copy.

Section 9: Public notice

A notice containing:

• the title or name and business address of the Library Records Access Officer
• the title or name and business address of the Library's FOIL Appeal Officer
• the location where records can be seen or copied

shall be posted in a conspicuous location in the Library, and on the Library website at ADDRESS.

Section 10: Severability

If any provision of these regulations or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is adjudged invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such judgment shall not affect or impair the validity of the other provisions of these regulations or the application thereof to other persons and circumstances.

YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO SEE YOUR LIBRARY'S PUBLIC RECORDS

The amended Freedom of Information Law ("FOIL"), which took effect on January 1, 1978, gives you the right of access to many public records, including many of those related to the operation of your public library.

Records related to the Library, if not considered exempt from FOIL, can be seen and copied at:

(Location)____________________________________

(Address)____________________________________

____________________________________________

____________________________________________

____________________________________________

The following Library employee(s) will help you to exercise your right to access:

Library Records Access Officer(s)

(name)_____________________________________________

(job title)____________________________________________

(business address)_____________________________________

____________________________________________________

(phone #)____________________________________________

If you are denied access to a record, you may appeal to the following person(s) or body:

(name)_____________________________________________

(job title)____________________________________________

(business address)_____________________________________

____________________________________________________

(phone #)____________________________________________

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

When New York’s "proper-cause requirement" for obtaining an unrestricted license to carry a concealed firearm was struck down by the United States Supreme Court on June 23, 2022[1], the New York State Legislature--in a state still reeling from fatal gun violence in Buffalo just weeks before--swiftly passed laws to replace it.[2]

The law they passed on July 1, 2022 was a different approach than "proper cause". Rather than require someone to prove they had a reason to carry a concealed weapon; it removed that SCOTUS-invalidated section from the Penal law, and added Section 265.01-e of the New York State Penal Law: "Criminal possession of a firearm, rifle or shotgun in a sensitive location".

255.01-e goes into effect on September 1, 2022.   It provides:

1. A person is guilty of criminal possession of a firearm, rifle or shotgun in a sensitive location when such person possesses a firearm, rifle or shotgun in or upon a sensitive location, and such person knows or reasonably should know such location is a sensitive location.

2. For the purposes of this section, a sensitive location shall mean:

(a) any place owned or under the control of federal, state or local government, for the purpose of government administration, including courts;

(b) any location providing health, behavioral health, or chemical dependance care or services;

(c) any place of worship or religious observation;

(d) libraries, public playgrounds, public parks, and zoos; ...

Criminal possession of a firearm, rifle or shotgun in a "sensitive location" is a class E felony.  [emphases added; rest of law is below answer]

So, the very plain answer to the member's question is: libraries that inform visitors that the area is a "sensitive location" per Penal Law 255.01-e can bar firearms, rifles, and shotguns on library property.

There are a few practical considerations for this:

1.  Because enforcement of the law requires people to be aware of it, libraries should maintain a map of their property and use it to develop signage that informs those licensed to carry firearms of the applications of the law.

2.  Libraries should work with their local law enforcement and/or private security to be sure their plan for 255.01-e enforcement is well-thought out, is in a written policy passed by the Board, and is practiced plan for enforcement.

3.  Libraries should not rely solely on 255.01-e for assurance of safety, but rather, should consider it another tool in the box (other tools are: a workplace violence prevention policy, an all-hazards response plan, and customized safety measures).

4.  Libraries with shared spaces should meet with their neighbors to assess the application of the law in common areas (note: many of the entities libraries tend to share spaces with--historical societies, community centers, town buildings, etc.--are "sensitive locations" too; see the rest of the list below).

5.  Libraries in areas where local law already restricts firearms in certain areas should explore how this new "sensitive location" law interacts with the laws in their municipality (a job for the library's lawyer).

6.  Libraries in areas immediately adjacent to places where people go hunting should pay particular attention to the 255.01-e's modifications for hunters, and be ready to enforce the law with suitable refinements.[3]\

7.  Since enforcement of 255.01-e depends on a person being clearly informed of the area being a "sensitive location", signage should be developed carefully, and reviewed by an attorney before posting.

And now, let's talk about the hard part: diplomacy.

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to strike down the "proper cause" requirement brought dismay to some, and satisfaction to others.  The reaction to New York's swift response in creating new gun control measures will likely be similarly schismatic. Since a good implementation of 255.01-e will require thorough discussion of it, I think it might be helpful to provide some additional information for perspective.

But before we do that, I will share a small story.

In 2021, I attended a pistol permit class.  A colleague of mind had obtained her permit and invited me to target practice, and since I am a relentless seeker of skills, I wanted to give it a try, and getting a permit was the only way onto the range.

While at my pistol permit class, I learned (or re-learned) several things, the most repeated one being: never point a gun at something you don't want to shoot.[4]

As it turned out, I finished the class, but I didn't apply for a pistol permit. Rather than become a casual weekend target shooter, I opted to learn welding[5], instead.  But I do remember something from the class that is relevant to this answer; when the instructor coached us on how to fill in the application for a pistol permit, he explained how if you wanted to conceal-carry, we would need a special reason (a "proper-cause" as discussed by the Supreme Court)...and then assured the females in the room that for us, it was probably enough of a safety risk that we were women--but the men should be ready with a bit more justification.

If you ever meet me out when I am feeling chatty, we can unpack the implications of this assurance.[6] For now, I'll say, when presented with this, my first thought was: this does not seem consistent with the U.S. Constitution.

It's not every day I find myself aligned with Justice Thomas (who wrote the majority opinion scuttling "proper cause") but for this one, I actually get it.

Which brings me to a cool thing about law, and the reason that despite its ups and downs, I cherish my profession.

In ruling that NY's "proper cause" requirement violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, Judge Thomas wrote:

After holding that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to armed self-defense, we also relied on the historical understanding of the Amendment to demark the limits on the exercise of that right. We noted that, “[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” Id., at 626. “From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

...

For example, courts can use analogies to “longstanding” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings” to determine whether modern regulations are constitutionally permissible. Id., at 626. That said, respondents’ attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a “sensitive-place” law lacks merit because there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department. Pp. 17–22.

So, the Supreme Court trashed New York's law as unconstitutional, but while doing it, reinforced other elements of Second Amendment jurisprudence related to "sensitive spaces." 

The NY Legislature, taking Hon. Thomas at his word, has now created a lengthy list of "sensitive spaces"...and while it doesn't quite cover the entire "Isle of Manhattan", it is a very comprehensive list.

          In addition to the "sensitive locations" listed above, it includes:

(e) [licensed child care providers];

(f) nursery schools, preschools, and summer camps;

(g) [programs] for people with developmental disabilities;

(h) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by office of addiction services and supports;

(i) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by the office of mental health;

(j) the location of certain disability assistance programs;

(k) homeless shelters, runaway homeless youth shelters, family shelters, shelters for adults, domestic violence shelters, and emergency shelters, and residential programs for victims of domestic violence;

(l) residential settings licensed, certified, regulated, funded, or operated by the department of health;

(m)  educational institutions;

(n) public transportation...airports, train stations, subway and rail stations, and bus terminals;

(o) [any place where you can consume alcohol or cannibis];

(p)  theaters, stadiums, racetracks, museums, amusement parks, performance venues, concerts, exhibits, conference centers, banquet halls, and gaming facilities and video lottery terminal facilities as licensed by the gaming commission;

(q) any location being used as a polling place;

(r) any public sidewalk or other public area restricted from general public access for a limited time or special event that has been issued a permit for such time or event by a governmental entity, or subject to specific, heightened law enforcement protection, or has otherwise had such access restricted by a governmental entity, provided such location is identified as such by clear and conspicuous signage;

(s) any gathering of individuals to collectively express their constitutional rights to protest or assemble;[7]

(t) the area commonly known as Times Square.[8]

Will this list survive a challenge to the law, with people claiming they have a right to bear arms in some of these locations?  Here is the plain-language personal right that the list is up against;

It is undisputed that petitioners Koch and Nash[9]—two ordinary, law-abiding, adult citizens—are part of “the people” whom the Second Amendment protects. See Heller, 554 U. S., at 580. And no party disputes that handguns are weapons “in common use” today for self-defense. See id., at 627. The Court has little difficulty concluding also that the plain text of the Second Amendment protects Koch’s and Nash’s proposed course of conduct—carrying handguns publicly for self-defense. Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, and the definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry. Moreover, the Second Amendment guarantees an “individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” id., at 592, and confrontation can surely take place outside the home. Pp. 23–24

Why do I bring this up?  I am from Central NY (raised in a pro-gun rights area) and my adopted hometown is Buffalo.  I know and respect people on both sides of the gun debate.  This issue isn't going away soon...and libraries that want to implement this law will need to discuss it.

So, when your library decides to adopt a 255.01-e policy and put up some signage, it is worth thinking deeply about the local character of your community, and how they will best absorb and honor this message. The law does not prescribe any particular way to designate how an area is posted as a "sensitive location;" your signage can sound as helpful and friendly--or as formal and stern--as you like. It can quote the law, or, so long as the final text is reviewed by an attorney, it can paraphrase it. The choice is yours, and can reflect the character and needs of your particular community.

Just as critical will be discussing with local law enforcement (or contract security) how this law will be enforced in your libraries.  Training staff to understand and speak knowledgeably about the policy will be critical, too.

Writing this from Buffalo, I wish we lived in the world where we didn't have to address this type of question for something so beautiful as a local library. But we do, and I am grateful for the person who submitted the question, and I wish you well as your libraries work with the new legislation.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

For a person who hasn't run into this concept yet, a so-called "First Amendment audit" is an increasingly popular trend where people visit government buildings and demand access to information--along with the privilege to film on site--all in the name of the law, democracy and transparency.

As a lawyer and U.S. citizen, I am all for the law, democracy, and transparency.

The concern raised by the member is that so-called "First Amendment auditors" don't just pop by their local town hall to live out a civics lesson.  Most of these folks are "monetized", meaning they post their recordings on YouTube...for money.  And since nothing draws in viewers like controversy, in the quest to get tens of thousands of hits, "First Amendment auditors" often[1] swap law, democracy, and transparency for rhetoric, bullying...and borderline harassment.

How do these YouTubers[2] create this concern?  As can be seen in their videos, they often come out swinging: filming or streaming while walking around as if "casing" a civic building, knowing that for some workers, this will cause concern.  Further, if/when confronted about what they are doing (usually some version of "Can I help you?") the best YouTubers are masters at using standoffish nonchalance, or passive-aggressive behavior, to trigger suspicion and fear.

Sadly, however, it is sometimes the fearful or angry reaction of those being filmed (town clerks, other employees) that tips things into a legal quagmire...and creates "click-worthy" material.

While mainly focused on municipal buildings (town halls, village halls, etc.) a growing sub-set of "First Amendment auditors" are visiting public libraries. I'd put a link in to some of the more egregious examples that have been created in New York in the last year or two, but I don't want to make money for these folks (they are doing just fine without me).  Let's just say that when the YouTuber is able to hit all the right pressure points, they can really tick off a civil servant--including a librarian.

The frustrating thing is that this doesn't have to happen.

Libraries--even those wholly housed within a municipally-owned structure--are, as the member says, "limited public forums" meaning that the library gets to set policy and rules imposing reasonable, operationally-related parameters on speech ("speech" in First Amendment jurisprudence, includes the right to film and access information).

Among other things, this means that libraries can totally bar or limit filming to certain areas of the library.

Of course, such a bar or limit can't be arbitrary--it must be "rationally related" to the operational needs of the library.  But so long as there is a "rational relationship" between the policy and the needs of the library, such a bar can be enforced.[3]

This means that through policy, a library can decide that patron confidentiality, information access, and the library's overall service to the public require limiting recording and/or streaming on site--a rule that can be enforced just like rules to be quiet in certain rooms, to not eat in certain areas, and to not deface any of the books.[4]

This means that the confident swagger many YouTubers bring to their "audit" game can be met, in the field, with a series of rules restricting their behavior--something (from what I've seen) that many YouTubers are not emotionally nor intellectually ready to honor in the moment.  In other words, just because your policy is legal, doesn't mean a YouTuber will magically turn their camera off!

So enforcing such policy requires forethought...especially since most YouTubers know that if they can get in an argument with a librarian, they will double (or triple) their number of hits.

So, as the member asks: "[H]ow can we stop the filming, as quietly as possible without causing a social media frenzy?"

Here are 10 different tactics[5]:

Have a Policy

Have a policy regarding filming in the library, and make sure that any decision to bar filming is rationally related to library priorities such as protecting patron confidentiality, respect for employees, and smooth operations.[6]

Use Good Signage

However your library decides to exercise its rights as a limited public forum, once it is confirmed in a policy, use prominent and effective signage to inform the public about the rules.

Transparency through FOIL

Since claiming the right to film anywhere in a public library is only part of the YouTuber package, make sure your library has a clear policy and process for requesting library records through the New York State Freedom of Information Law (or "FOIL").[7]

Designated Non-Public Areas

All staff rooms, break rooms, and other areas not accessible to the public should be designated as "No Public Access", with appropriate means of securing the area.  Give your employees a place of refuge (and a place for private information to securely reside).

Select Your Library's Response and Non-Escalation Method

As we've discussed, if you argue with a YouTuber, you might as well just hand them money.

So, while there is no one "right" way to resist escalating a situation, each library should pick its own particular brand of how to keep interactions with YouTubers civil, non-confrontational, and above all very, very, very boring.

For those libraries that do allow filming (whether without restriction,[8] or with some limits), but want to be part of the narrative, I like the idea of chatty engagement about the library's mission, services, and budget (and fundraising).  After all, the YouTuber is there to get information...why not provide it?  Think of the YouTuber's visit as a chance to inform the public of the history of the library, to showcase its services, and alert the public as to how they can donate money to support special initiatives (this is a good reason to have a copy of the library's annual report on hand). If YouTube is helping to draw attention to your library, you might as well put your best foot forward!

For those libraries that don't allow filming, or restrict it to certain times/areas, ensuring that a person who is attempting to film in the library is aware of the duly authorized and posted policy is essential.  After that, if a person persists in violating the policy, a response is down to what enforcement method is selected and practiced, which can include a combination of:

• Policy enforcement in the moment (using practiced security procedures);
• Policy enforcement after the moment (the recording happens without confrontation, but there is a subsequent action for trespass, or other action under Code of Conduct);
• Deliberate non-engagement with the YouTuber using pre-determined language ("It is against our policy for you to film in this location"; and/or "You do not have my consent to film me, I consider it harassing; please stop." said once, calmly.[9]);
• Use of pre-determined, quiet withdrawal of most employees into employee-only areas.

Do not argue. Do not debate. 

And finally, it is important to acknowledge: for some library employees, the visit of a YouTuber can feel threatening (remember, many of these entertainers are trying to get a rise out of people). So as with any other interaction with the public, the clear message to employees must be: Safety First.  If employees are feeling threatened, they should withdraw using the same protocol in place for other safety concerns.[10]

Practice, Practice, Practice

Once there is a policy and clear, engaging signage, set aside time to train employees in the policy, and give them time to practice addressing YouTubers in a non-confrontational manner.  Use role-playing techniques (done right, this can be a fun exercise, even though the actual event might not be so fun).

Coordinate with Security

Not all libraries have private security, but for those that do, make sure they understand what is at stake when dealing with a YouTuber; include security personnel in the practice sessions (if time and budget allow). At the bare minimum, confer with the local police department to know what the response will be if the situation warrants intervention by law enforcement.[11]

Remember: YouTubers are Human, Too

I know it can be hard to recall when someone is pointing a camera in your face and wandering about your library looking like they are creating a map of its security vulnerabilities, but one thing I've learned from working with libraries who have lived through a "First Amendment audit"[12] is that very often the visitor is a member of the community.

In fact, some libraries have received calls from national groups in advance alerting them that a longstanding member of the community will be visiting to film!  (I suspect the "advance warning" was to create an adrenalin rush, but the library was able to use its long-standing relationship with the person to make it a positive interaction.)

So long as a library employee dealing with a YouTuber feels confident about their safety, thinking about the YouTuber as a person who is genuinely curious about your library, and treating them as just another patron on a quest for information, can help cut down on click-bait drama--and serve the mission of the library to provide access to information.

Maintaining that type of perspective is easier if the employee is:

          a) confident that they know the library's policy about filming in the library;

          b) confident that the policy is clearly posted;

          c) confident that the library is on solid legal ground;

          d) confident of how the library as a whole responds to Code of Conduct violations;

          e) confident that the library abides by the law governing access to information; and;

          f) confident about if/how to engage, because they have practiced techniques for positive interactions and non-escalation, and they know leadership will have their back.

And that is how a library can turn YouTube drama into a non-dramatic civics lesson. It is not fool-proof, because if a person is determined to enter a library and create a scene, they will create a scene. But with good policy and practice, a library and its employees won't contribute to it.

Thank you for a great question!

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

Following our "do not reinvent the wheel" rule for "Ask the Lawyer," prior to diving into this, we checked the "Trustees Handbook" posted at https://www.nysl.nysed.gov/libdev/trustees/handbook/handbook.pdf.  On page 57, it provides an excellent summation of the concern at play in the issue of trustees and fund-raising:

"Public library boards generally take care to separate private fundraising efforts (such as direct personal solicitations, as opposed to seeking grants from foundations or government agencies) from normal library operations and board activities since there are restrictions on the appropriate use of public funds." [emphasis added]

The Handbook then points out that this concern is why many public libraries use "Friends" to personally solicit and raise funds.

To this concern about limits on the use of public funds, I would add that when it comes to raising money, it is very easy for the solicitation to run afoul of charitable regulations, required accounting, and limits on allowed fund-raising activities (such as games of chance).

But does this caution merit a complete bar on such solicitations?

To explore that, let's explore the risks.  And we're also going to talk about "raffles", so hang in there, association libraries...this one's for you, too.

Before a board solicits gifts, it should have a full suite of "fiscal controls" and accounting practices to govern how the solicitation is done.  A policy on soliciting/accepting donations, and policy on fund-raising events, a policy on procurement...if a board ensures that its actions in soliciting gifts are following a legally compliant policy, this mitigates the risk of no-compliance.

Let's take the member's specific situation as an example: Could trustee solicitations of gift cards for a raffle used as an inducement to participate in a survey on library use be done carefully enough to avoid a concern?

Here are the risks in such an endeavor: the library is planning to 1) have trustees ask for donations of gift cards; 2) use the cards as an inducement to fill out a survey; then 3)  "raffle" the donated cards; then 4) use the answers from the survey "to assess what the community wants to see in the library now and in the future."

Of the 4 things listed above, only #1--the solicitation of the cards--doesn't give me pause.  If the library has a good donation acceptance policy, and the cards are donated per that policy, and the library follows the conditions for the donation...then it is just another donation.

#2 poses a risk that is pretty easy to mitigate with a little caution.  In the world of not-for-profits in New York, a "raffle" is a "game of chance".  This means a "raffle" can be considered "charitable gaming" which can require registration and particular accounting (see General Municipal Law of New York (Section 186), and registration).

However, as defined by law, a "raffle" in New York requires the purchase of tickets for payment of money.[1] Since the draw described isn't technically a "raffle" (it's a drawing), to avoid any confusion, it might be good to avoid using that word.[2]

In addition, if you have time, it would be good to call your local County Clerk to make sure they don't regard the use of raffle tickets without payment of money to be a "raffle."[3]

Okay, the "raffle" concern is pretty easy to ameliorate. My concerns about #2 and #4 are a little more subtle and tricky.

As stated, the library is hoping the lisupare[4] will inspire people to fill out a survey to assess what the community wants to.

This means that the library hopes to use the results of the survey to make decisions about such things as programming, collection decisions, and the library facility.  From the sound of it, the input could even be used to develop plans for renovation or new construction funded by a bond or other municipal funding initiative in the future.

I imagine you see where I am going here.  By offering a reward with a defined financial value for participating in the survey, the board would risk the assertion of a direct link between financial compensation and a person filling out the survey a certain way.

I know.  This seems ridiculous.  But complaints have been made about far more innocuous things.

To avoid this, I suggest the library consider a different approach to incentivizing broad community participation in the survey. For instance, each person who completes one gets a leaf ornament or token to hang on a display, so the community can see how many people have taken time out of their day to give their feedback to the library.[5]  In this scenario, the trustees could request donations of the ornaments or display (which can then become part of the library's stock of display materials) can just follow the usual policy for accepting donations.

I am sorry to have to write this; I hate throwing cold water at good ideas.  Further, I am not saying the "raffle" (uh, that's "lisupare") is outright wrong.  But libraries function in large part because of the love and trust they foster in the public.  While the notion of a chance to be selected for a monetary gift for taking the time to complete a library survey is lovely, I think it can be interpreted wrongly--either in the moment, or down the road. 

Thank you for trusting me with this question.[6]

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

These are very important questions.

Just in case any reader needs a refresher, a "notary public" in New York performs critical services: administering oaths and affirmations, taking affidavits and depositions, certifying acknowledgements or proof of critical documents (such as real property deeds, mortgages, and powers of attorney), and certifying copies of official documents.

Anyone who has ever had to have a document notarized knows how important finding "a notary" can be.

In New York, the power of notaries is summarized in Article 6 of the Executive Law.

Of relevance to the member's question, that law also imposes penalties for mis-applying a notary’s power:

"For any misconduct by a notary public in the performance of any of his[1] powers such notary public shall be liable to the parties injured for all damages sustained by them."

So, what does "misconduct" by a notary, for which they "shall be liable" look like?

Examples found in the case law of New York include:

• Inattention to authentication of a signature resulting in allegations of a forged real property deed (Chicago Title Insurance Company v. LaPierre, 2013);
• "Gross negligence" asserted after a notary allegedly authenticated a forged signature, causing a person not on a lease to be sued for its violation (Independence Leasing Corporation v. Acquino, 1986);
• A bank suing for "notarial misconduct" when a forged signature led them to rely on a document guaranteeing a loan (Marine Midland Bank v. Stanton, 1990).

In each of these cases, the "liability" led to demands for money related to the alleged misconduct...as well as legal fees for having to sue.

Also of relevance to the member's questions, in addition to personal liability of a notary, case law shows that when misconduct is asserted against a notary who performed the service as part of their employment, the employer was also named (which is what happened in the Independence case listed above).

Of course, not all assertions of notarial misconduct will be found to be valid.  But since even a case brought in error requires a timely and effective defense, an assertion of notarial misconduct can cause expense (and stress!) for the notary (and their employer).   Which is why the member is rightly concerned about protecting a library employee serving as a notary.

With all that as background, to answer the member's questions, here are five critical steps before any employee should serve as a notary public as part of their work for a public (including association) library:

1.  Before offering the notary services of an employee, a library should confirm with their insurance carrier that their coverage includes a claim of "notarial misconduct."

In New York (and throughout the country, but we're focusing on New York here), different insurance policies include (and exclude) different coverage for things.

Because of this, there is no one "type" of coverage I can assure readers that will always cover an assertion of notarial misconduct. 

And because of that, a library should work with its insurance broker and/or insurance advisor, or directly with the carrier, to ensure (and then be assured, in writing) that such coverage is included in their policy (and extends to employees).

This is critical not only when insurance is first obtained, but whenever the carrier issues a new policy (or when there is a change of carriers). 

2.  Before offering the notary services of an employee, the library should confirm that offering notary services is in the employee's job description.

An employee who has taken the time to study the requirements, passed the exam, maintained the license, and operates as a notary as part of their work at the library, is taking on risk to offer something of value to the community. Adding that ability and service to an employee's job description accomplishes two important things.

First, it acknowledges the value of the license held by the employee.

Second, by making it clear that the employee is offering notary service as part of their job, it helps ensure that the library's insurance coverage will cover the employee if there is an assertion of notarial misconduct[2].

If the library cannot amend a job description to include this ability, the provision of notary services should not be a part of library services offered.

Further (and this is critical) if the library can't consider the employee to be offering notary services as a service, the employee should not notarize documents when "on the clock" for the library.

3.  Before offering the notary services of an employee, the library should confirm the adequacy of its internal procedures.

A notary public's function requires several things to ensure compliance: time to perform the function properly, good record-keeping to ensure that the function was properly performed, and consideration of how such records will be kept secure and confidential.

An example of this is found in the new guidelines for remote notary posted at dos.ny.gov/notary-public.

In addition to what is required by law, the library's insurance carrier may also have some requirements, so a solid internal procedure should include their input, at well.

And of course, whatever is needed should be supported in the library's budget.

4.  Before offering the notary services of an employee, the library should confirm how it promotes awareness of the service.

Section 135-b of the Executive Law also sets some rules for how notary services are advertised!  Because of this, libraries should be careful about how the notary services are promoted.  For more on that, see the rules posted by the New York Department of State at:

https://dos.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2022/04/notary.pdf

And finally...

5.  Please don't let the red tape in this answer stop your library from offering notary service.

I know the considerations of this answer have gone a little further than the specific content of the question.

Further, I know that words like "liability" and "misconduct”, and "insurance" can be intimidating, and signal expense.

However, for anyone out there who has ever had to desperately search for a notary public on a time-sensitive basis, you know that assured notary services are a real boon to a community.

I encourage any library who is offering notary public services, who may read this and think "uh-oh," to consider it a critical community service that is very much worth the time and effort to properly support.

In addition, I urge libraries to support and honor the hard work of any employee who has obtained their notary license by ensuring these steps and make sure they have the proper resources to offer the service confidently.

In that spirit...many thanks to the member for an important set of questions!

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

Regular readers of "Ask the Lawyer" know one of the cardinal rules is: "Do not reinvent the wheel."  So, before working on this reply, we[1] checked the "NY Library Trustees Handbook (2018),"[2] which has a whole section on hiring library directors.

The Handbook does not reference how "common" having a contract for a library director is, but on page 46, it does emphasize the importance of using a "hire letter" or "memorandum" or "contract" to confirm the hiring terms. 

This is wise counsel.  So, before we build on it to answer the member (and we will!), let's (briefly) talk about the difference between hire letters, memorandums,[3] and contracts.

As most readers likely know, New York is an "at will" employment state.  This means that, barring illegal[4] factors, an employer is free to terminate an employee as needed--and similarly, an employee is free to resign.  Most "hire letters" confirm "at-will" employment.[5]

An "employment contract," on the other hand, puts more bells and whistles on the relationship. It can address a range of things, including the parties' ability to terminate the relationship, and can alter (for a particular employee) the application of an employer's policies.[6]

Typical clauses in employment contracts for library directors are:

• A confirmation of the job description;
• A probationary period;
• A routine evaluation method;
• An assured period of employment (for instance, a 1-year or 5-year contract);
• Relocation costs;
• A recital of specific expectations beyond what is in the job description--for instance, if the director is being employed at the beginning of a strategic plan with expansion objectives, and part of the reason for the hire is a requirement to help keep the expansions on track;
• A benefit structure that differs from other job titles;
• A base compensation and bonus structure based on clearly articulated and quantifiable performance metrics;
• A commitment to a certain amount of budgeted funds and time out of the library for professional development;
• Tuition or professional development reimbursement;
• A consequence for early resignation;
• A list of specific reasons the contract can be terminated early by the board "for cause";
• A list of specific reasons the contract can be terminated early by the director;
• A buy-out or other provision in the event of early termination by the employer "without cause";
• A confidentiality clause;
• A clause regarding support in the event a lawsuit or legal complaint is directed at the employee[7] as a result of the employee performing their duties (similar to what protects a trustee).

Of course, the above-listed items are just examples.

So, how does a library board know when to use a contract?

There are too many factors to list, but here is a tool for assessing if a contract is the right approach to locking in employment terms between a library and director:

If your library answered "yes" to one or more of the above factors, it might be worth considering using a contract!  This is true even if no other library you know of is doing so (or if they all are).

That said, like all things that create obligations, a contract requires CAUTION.  Here are some factors to consider before a library decides to use a contract:

If the answer to any of the above questions is "no," a board should consider if additional steps need to be taken before deciding to offer a director an employment contract.  Employment contracts are like houseplants; although they largely just sit there, they need attention from time-to-time.

And that's my answer to the member's question; not based so much on what is "common", but definitely based on what might be "necessary" for a particular library.

Thanks for a great question, and good luck with your search.

BONUS CONTENT

If there are three take-aways I hope this answer conveys, they are:

1) a contract for a library director can be a positive and helpful thing for both parties;

2) before offering or requesting a contract, a board or director should know what they want, and why (and if a contract can fulfill that); and

3) never, never, NEVER use a generic contract from the internet...always have a draft contract reviewed by a lawyer[8] before it is offered.

To help emphasize these three take-aways, here are three limericks:

A pro-active library board

Over its strategy pored

"We seek a director

who has it together

Should a contract be offered?"

The board then decided "Why yes,

Our new person must fix quite the mess

So we'll set some terms

That our contract confirms

To address our points of high stress."

The right fit was finally found

A lawyer said the contract was sound

So to the future director,

A contract was sent o'er,

And now they are legally bound!

Did this trio of limericks skip the part of the process where the parties negotiate back and forth, and the contract is (hopefully) signed?  Yes.

But hey... the top 3 take-aways are in bold.  That's what's important. Please let us know if they are helpful.[9]

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

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.[1]  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[2] 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![3]

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

Before I answer this thoughtful array of questions, it is important to establish that aside from law, regulation, and library-specific policy, use of and access to space at public and association libraries can be governed by:

• Owner-imposed conditions[1]
• Lease agreements[2]
• Deed and zoning restrictions[3]
• Donor conditions[4]
• Grant agreements[5]
• Collaboration/affiliation terms[6]

So, before a reader tries to use this answer to tackle issues like those posed by the member, assess if any of those factors are at play in your library.

Okay.  Now, IF NO OTHER CONTRACTUAL OR OTHER RESTRICTIONS IMPACT YOUR LIBRARY, OR A SPACE IN YOUR LIBRARY, here we go:

Questions #1 - Is there a legal requirement for public libraries to limit to non-profit organizations? If not, what is the basis for limitations?

No, there is no legal requirement for public libraries to limit access to space to non-profit organizations.

However, there IS a requirement for any "charitable" entity[7] in New York to not allow any of its assets to “inure” to any one individual, while non-association libraries have to follow an even stricter rule against "aid" to individual people or businesses as set by the NY Constitution (this is why a town library can't use funds to throw a big "bon voyage" party to celebrate a retiring employee, but its not-for-profit "Friends" can).

To avoid tripping over this bar on "inurement" and "aid," many libraries adopted a rule that only charitable entities can use their rooms.[8]  This, however, goes beyond what is required.  Rooms and space can be used by any type of person or organization...but there needs to be a rational basis related to library services and the library's plan of service, and not creating a prohibited benefit, when allowing that access.

How is that done? Examples include:

• Have a rental policy and use agreement for meeting rooms, with the fee waived for tax-exempt entities, and rental fees channeled back into maintenance of the space[9];
• Based on the assessed needs of the community, allow card-holding members of the library to reserve and "check out" multi-purpose space on an hourly basis;
• Create purpose-specific space (telehealth booth, darkroom, soundproof room, etc.) that are "checked out" like other collection assets.

Question #2 - Is it a legal requirement for all meetings to be open to the public?

No, there is no legal requirement for meetings in rented or "borrowed" space in a public library to be open to the public.  However, the library must ensure that renters and borrowers do not restrict access on the basis of any protected category of identity (age, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.), or they risk a discrimination claim.

Here is an example of what I mean by "risk a discrimination claim":  If I want to rent a 50-person capacity room at my public library to host a "Women In the Law" monthly meeting, and I publicly advertise the event "For Women Only,"[10] and I let the first 49 people whom I think fit the bill in at the door (while rejecting others), I am creating an exclusionary event that risks a discrimination claim...as well as a PR issue that no library wants to be a part of. [11] In other words: DO NOT DO THIS.

Contrast that with this scenario: I rent the library's 50-person capacity room to stage an event open to the public (no identity-based restrictions), but the topic of the event is a Lincoln-Douglas format "Women Shouldn't Be Lawyers: A Debate."[12] In this example, I risk a similar PR nightmare...but because access to the event is not restricted by a protected category, I do not risk a discrimination complaint based on access.

Question #3 - Is there any benefit for the different type of meeting rooms to have different policies? Why should Large Study Rooms, Conference Rooms, and/or Meeting Rooms policies differ?

Yes, there is a benefit: purpose-built rooms, with purpose-built policies based on identified needs in a library's area of service, justify how the library decides who gets access.  For example, a room with no windows might be designated as the preferred space for a support group for survivor's domestic violence and others that need "discrete" space.  A room with the best wiring might be the space designated for groups gathering to use technology (such as an e-sports club).  A room with the best ventilation might be designated for crafts and chair yoga.  And even though not required, a room could be reserved for only not-for-profit community organizations.

With this approach, a library could have a policy applicable to all rooms (requiring that all attendees follow the library's Code of Conduct), and use room-specific overlays to further set the fair and equally applied terms for access.  This gives the library the flexibility to set different use privileges, while not seeming arbitrary.

Which brings me to the member's comment:

I am leaning towards shifting the mindset from limiting meeting room use to ...non-profit organizations (education, civic, cultural, etc.) and to advance public libraries in supporting local businesses and economic development in our communities.

This is the tricky part.  Remember the bar on "inurement" and "aid"?   It is possible to "support local businesses and economic development" without the benefits accruing specifically to one person--but a library has to be careful.

For instance, say the library wanted to have an "entrepreneur in residence" every week, providing space to new business owners to showcase their products/services, and their story.  

A risky example of this would be: the library provides space in its "Entrepreneur Room," and the entrepreneur charges money for services offered on site for the week.   In that scenario, the library is basically providing free space to a for-profit business, which as we discussed above, is a no-go.

A "go-go" version of this would be: based on a commitment in their plan of service, the library uses data to assess under-served or under-represented members or geographic areas of the business community.

The library then announces to the public that a business owner in the identified zone will be the "Entrepreneur in Residence" in the "Entrepreneur Room" throughout the week, to answer questions about being a business owner in their community.  The library will feature information about the business, as well as its industry.

During their week in the library, the entrepreneur makes connections, showcases their product/service, and gains valuable connections and potential clients...but makes no sales on-site.  However, while sharing their experience with other members of the community, they do get a boost to their business...which the library knows, because it collects follow-up data to show how the program has impacted the local business environment.

This is just one example; there are many ways to do this...and with proper planning, it won't cause issues with either a library's charitable status, or with the New York State Constitution.

Meeting room issues are tough, but a library that bases meeting room[13] access on the commitments in its plan of service, develops space-use programs based on data-derived community needs, and takes care to avoid "inurement" and "aid," can navigate these issues.  Space-specific policies are not required for that, but they can help.

From the care taken by the member in writing this question, it is plain to see: it's worth it.

Thank you for a good set of questions.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

Some days, I just love my job.  The day I subscribed to "Your Friendly Neighborhood Librarians" (2/4/22) to answer this question was one of those days.

For those of you who haven't checked out the Podcast: it's a forum where hosts (and librarians) Jim and Robyn, based in Rochester, NY, conduct deep and lively interviews with quasi-local authors.  ^[1]

When it comes to running a Podcast, there's a lot of legal to unpack.  I'll use a recent episode of YFNL (Season 2, Episode 4, January 30, 2022), an interview with photographer Quajay Donnell to illustrate.

When the Podcast starts, the first thing you hear is the YFNL's theme song:

[guitar strumming] "Librarians, librarians, when you've got questions, they're the ones, to help you find what you're looking for..." [more].  It sounds vaguely like the theme to "Spiderman" and is clearly a riff; it's super-cute and fun and brings a smile to my face. Then Jim and Robyn introduce the session's guest and launch into the interview.

The rapport is lively and fun, but Jim and Robyn's deeply prepared interview technique gives Quajay Donnell room to make comments, tell stories, and respond to well-informed prompts to talk not only about his work, but the work of others, and his thoughts on public art (I enjoy Mr. Donnell's comment, after a glowing list of his credentials "I sometimes struggle with the title of 'photographer', I sometimes say 'I'm a picture-taker', or 'I capture moments'."  I appreciate when people resist or explore the purpose of labels).  The show then ends with a cut to a recommendation from a circulation desk worker, Sim, who recommends "Field of Blood" by Joanne Friedman, and a tease for the next episode ("banned and challenged books"), some thanks to various show-helpers,^[2] and an instrumental of that great theme song.

So with that background, let's answer the questions:

"[W]hat the ramifications are if a guest does not like the way their interview was edited and whether the library owns the rights to the interview and recording.  Additionally, any advice on whether we should be using some sort of contract or agreement with guests would be helpful. We don't have any sort of agreement in place at present, and are mostly interviewing people who are somewhat library-related."

I wish I could give simple answers to these straightforward questions, but this is "Ask the Lawyer," so I cannot.  But to start, I can say there are three variables that inform the answer to these questions:

Variable "1": Who is creating the Podcast?  Is it "officially" the library, or is it being created through the collaboration of independent individuals?^[3]

Variable "2": What is the identity of the Podcast?   Is it 100% entertainment, or is it meant to be investigative journalism, oral history, or serve another documentary purpose?^[4]

Variable "3": What is the purpose of the Podcast?  In other words, what is it trying to achieve not only now, but 70 years from now, when it is still protected by copyright, and past consideration of such questions will govern what type of access its intended audience should have?

Here’s how these variables impact the member's questions:

If a library is the creator of the Podcast (meaning the library directed its employees to create the Podcast as part of the work they are hired to do), then the library is the entity responsible for addressing (and bearing the liability for) issues of ethics, ownership, and risk (like defamation and image use).  If an individual or individuals are the creator/owner of the podcast,^[5] the responsibility falls on them. 

If the identity of the podcast is light entertainment (that theme song!), then the creator does not have to worry about abiding by, or benefiting from, professional codes of ethics and law pertaining to journalism, academic work, oral history/documentary, or political expression.  But if it aspires to fall into any of those categories (and while it's not my call, I'd say YFNL is at the very least a form of journalism), ethics and certain laws may apply.

If the purpose of the Podcast is to ensure that people listening in 2022, as well as 100 years from now, appreciate home-grown artists in and around Rochester, NY, the creator/owner needs to ensure the work is set up to be controlled in such a way that access for that purpose is ensured.  This is true whether the owner is an entity (like a library), or a person or persons.

So with that as background, let's tackle the member's questions:

For the first question ('"[what] if a guest does not like the way their interview was edited?), the answer is: in a worst-case scenario (say the guest claims the interview was edited to make him sound offensive, and claims it caused him to be "cancelled"), there could be some type of legal claim for damages.  While I won't get too technical, this concern relates to a "tort" claim (like a personal injury) and the member is wise to bring it up, since this is a critical issue.^[6]

An attorney advising an entity or person on this would: 1) confirm who the creator, publisher and owner of the content is; 2) ensure the party (or parties) makes good use of a speaker agreement that secures a waiver of liability for the producer and all people affiliated with the podcast; 3) if appropriate,^[7] advise a step in the production process that gives participants the right to review and approve release of the final version (in writing).

This plays into the second question: "whether the library owns the rights to the interview and recording."

This should not be an ambiguous issue: either the work is "for hire" (meaning the librarians and other credited helpers are doing it as part of the work they are paid to do, or are working per an additional contract) and is owned by the library, OR the work is owned by the individuals creating it.

The leads to the third question (or rather, factor) listed by the member: We only edit for clarity and length.

This plays into the identity of the podcast. If a podcast or other work isn't using a lot of editing to create a specific dramatic or entertaining effect, and is structured to perform a primarily documentary function, it is worth considering using the established ethics of journalism or oral history to guide the project.

Why? 

In the state of New York, journalists' sources are accorded particular protections under the law, while the identity of the speaker and nature of the communications are relevant to claims of defamation. Also under New York law, the further an unauthorized^[8] use of someone's name, likeness, or voice, is from a "commercial use," the less likely a person can sue based on "invasion of privacy." And under federal copyright law, material that incorporates copyright-protected work (perhaps reading part of a poem) for journalistic, academic, or documentary functions will get consideration of that factor if a court needs to determine "fair use."

This next variable I listed is purpose, meaning, what is this work supposed to accomplish, and for how long? Consider that variable in light of the member's statement: "[We] haven't done anything in regards to copyright."

If the purpose of the podcast is to ensure as many people as possible access and appreciate it for as long as possible, what might be more important than registering a copyright is to ensure the work is archived on not only a commercial service such as Apple Podcast (where I found it), but in repositories owned by the public, as part of an institution whose structure ensures some type of longevity.

However, if part of the purpose of the podcast is to ensure for as long as possible that it can never be exploited commercially by anyone, and the owner wants to make sure it will be able to claim damages and attorneys' fees in the event the recording is infringed, registering it is a good idea.

So with that, I get to the last, open-ended question from the member: Additionally, any advice on whether we should be using some sort of contract or agreement with guests would be helpful.

It's important to know at this point that while sometimes I reach out to a member who submits a question to "Ask the Lawyer" (to get a bit more information to enable a more helpful answer), in this case, I did not reach out to Robyn and Jim (although because I really like the podcast, I wanted to!). I thought it would be more important, and in the spirit of their question, to present a generic answer to this part of their question with a generic template that could be of use to other libraries and librarians creating a podcast or other type of audio content.

When creating a podcast, here are the "legal" questions to answer to help you (and your lawyer) address the legal considerations:

Now, with all that said, I am very aware that some of the answers I have put above may cause more anxiety then resolve curiosity. To help out with that, below is a template for a "podcast guest agreement."

As with any template, a library or podcaster should have their lawyer consider all of the factors I list above before finalizing the template. But hopefully this template can provide a good start.

[Template Podcast Guest Agreement]

RE:  Terms of guest appearance on [PODCAST NAME] on [DATE]

Dear [NAME OF GUEST]:

Thank you for agreeing to be a guest on our show, [NAME] ("the Show") on [DATE TIME] to discuss [TOPIC].

Below are the terms between you and [OWNER NAME] ("Show Publisher") for your appearance on the Show.  Please review the terms, and if you agree, please sign below.

If you have any questions before signing, please contact [NAME] at [CONTACT INFO] to discuss them before sending us the signed copy.

Ownership

You agree that the direct recording (audio and visual) and any subsequent product incorporating it, including but not limited to transcription and any adaptive copies made to enable access by those with a disability, shall be the sole property of Show Owner.

Image Use

You agree that for purposes of promoting, publishing, performing, displaying and making the Show accessible to its audience, Show Owner may use your name, image, and likeness in print and electronic media.  This permission is expressly limited to promoting and publishing the episode of the Show featuring you.  This permission is irrevocable once the Show featuring you has been made available to the public in any medium.

Rules

The rules of participating in the Show are:

Show Owner is committed to creating an experience and show that respects the dignity of all participants and listeners.  If you have any concern at any point regarding your experience working on the Show, please alert [NAME] at [CONTACT INFO].

If at any point during recording you need to take a break, please simply state "I need a break" and we'll stop recording.  This includes if a topic is not one on which you wish to speak.

We edit our show for length and clarity.  You will be given an opportunity to review the edited version prior to it being uploaded to [SITE(s)].  We ask that you write to [NAME] and [EMAIL] with any concerns about edits within [#] days of the final cut being made accessible to you.  If we don't hear anything from you within three days (excluding Saturday and Sunday), we will assume you consent to the publication of the content.

Please refrain from any endorsement of any political candidates during recording.

Please do not accuse any person of a crime, having an STD, or of being incompetent at their job, or marital infidelity, unless such fact is generally known, during recording.  We don't anticipate your appearance will warrant a dip into such a topic, but to avoid claims of defamation, or having to edit out such content, we alert guests to this consideration.

[INSERT CUSTOM RULES]

Hold Harmless

You release and hold harmless Show Owner, its employees, volunteers, and agents from any and all liability, claims of injury, lawsuits, and complaints in association with Show.^[9]

Warranties & Representations

You represent and warrant that:

a) No contract or other obligation bars you from appearing on the Show;

b) Any performance on the Show by you will be of your own original work;

c) You are aware that the permission you are granting NAME to use your image, name, and likeness for the limited purposes listed above is irrevocable;

d)  You know the show will be archived by Show Owner and may archived to be available for your lifetime and beyond.

e) You are over the age of 18 and thus able to sign this contract OR your legal guardian has signed below.

Thank you so much for agreeing to be on our show!

Signed on behalf of Show Owner:___________________________

Signed by Guest:______________________________

Guest Date of Birth:_______________________________

Guest preferred pronouns:_____________________________

[if applicable] Signed by Guest's parent or guardian:____________________________

Good wishes for your friendly neighborhood podcasts, true-believers!

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

MAKING A COPY ON THIS MACHINE

MAY BE SUBJECT TO THE COPYRIGHT LAW OF THE UNITED STATES[1]

This means 4 important things:

1.  Copying a copyright-protected work here could be a copyright violation.[2]

2.  Copying protected works is sometimes allowed under "fair use."[3]  We can't give you legal advice, but if you want to learn more about "fair use," go to https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ21.pdf or see the [INSTITUTION NAME] Fair Use policy at [LINK].

3.  Copying a copyrighted work to accommodate a disability under the ADA is allowed.   However, to do that, please see the library staff, since adaptive copies have special rules,[4] and we want to help you (or a person you are assisting) exercise your rights.

4. As a library open to the public, there are special circumstances under which we get to make copies (libraries are special).  However, to qualify for that protection, this notice (which we have, by law, placed over the copier right in front of you), has to say what it says in bold at the very top, and we have to operate by this rule:

Any person or group is forbidden to use this machine to engage in the related or concerted reproduction or distribution of multiple copies of the same material, whether made on one occasion or over a period of time, and whether intended for aggregate use by one or more individuals or for separate use by the individual members of a group.

What does that mean? Entire classes should not come here and copy the whole text book for a course![5]  Please don't do that.[6]

The copy machines are here for your use, and we appreciate your consideration of these laws.

Thanks!

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

Quite a few laws, regulations, and regulatory authorities will impact the budget transfer policy of a school district public library.  Here are the biggies:

• NY State Constitution
• NY Education Law
• NY General Municipal Law; and
• GAGAS[1]

The trick to this question is that New York's school districts, which often (but not always) act as treasurer for an affiliated school district public library, must follow not only the above-listed laws and standards, but also must follow school district-specific rules for managing budgets.

What do those school district-specific rules say about budget transfers? As can be seen in the below excerpt from the "School Districts' Accounting and Reporting Manual," a school district can only transfer funds into the budget line of a contingent fund.[2]

Other public entities, however, follow different rules...rules that are a bit more liberal about transfers between budgeted lines, since for inter-line transfers, "only" board approval is required...as seen below in the[3] Comptroller's "Accounting and Reporting Manual" for towns, villages, and other local government entities:[4]

SO: does a school district public library in New York have to follow the rules of its sponsoring district? 

Here is what the Comptroller has to say:[5]

Public Libraries — Sponsored by counties, cities, towns, villages or school districts in most circumstances [are included in a local government's accounting] because of the existence of financial accountability as evidenced by funding of operations, approval of and responsibility for issuance and payment of debt and the ownership of real property. While this is the norm, situations do exist where the library is virtually autonomous and could be considered a special purpose government.

...

Final determination must be made at the local level after considering ... the appropriate criteria as they may apply to both governmental and non-governmental units.... [emphasis added]

In other words--while I hate to punt on this question-- IT DEPENDS.  There can be no one answer; the determination must be made at the local level--and by a person professionally qualified to make the determination.

That said, as a professional, I will go out on a limb and say that every Comptroller audit of a school district public library I have ever read emphasized the difference between the library and the district they are affiliated with.[6]  Further, the Comptroller, in those audits, has stated that independent board authority and oversight by the trustees must be exercised, even when the school district functions as treasurer. 

For this reason, I would comfortably suggest the presumption should be that the requirement to transfer only into a contingent fund, per the excerpt first pasted above, applies solely to a school district, and not to a school district's separate public library, even if the school district is the custodian of the funds, unless the two entities are so integrated that the library operates as a "component unit"[7] of the district.

That said, for school district public libraries who must develop policy based on this distinction, the person to answer this question is the accountant finalizing your audits and financial statements, since they are the one with the professional duty here.  That said, once they have determined that answer at the local level, ALL parties (the school district, the library, their accountants, and their lawyers) should be in agreement as to the reason for the decision.

Thank you for a good question, and for this reminder of why I became a lawyer, not an accountant![8]

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

The letters in the "NY HERO Act" stand for "Health and Essential Rights."[1]

What "essential rights" does it protect? 

• Section one of the HERO Act amends the New York Labor Law to create an "airborne infectious disease standard" covering all private employers.  The standard requires many things that will sound familiar: health checks, sanitization practices, and other preventative measure when there is a declared risk of airborne disease.
• Section two of the HERO Act amends the New York Labor Law to create joint employer-employee "workplace health and safety committees" (where there are 10 or more employees), so workers can collaborate and be involved in safety initiatives.

The new laws are activated only when an "infectious disease" is declared by the NY Commissioner of Health.  This means that right now, while the law is in effect, but no disease is designated, there is no need to have an active plan...but entities have to be ready to spring into action.[2]

Which brings us to the question: What types of libraries must comply?

We'll tackle the easy part first: without question, association libraries, which are private education corporations, must comply. 

For non-association libraries ("public" libraries), the language of the Act is much less clear, since the Act specifically exempts "...the state, any political subdivision of the state, a public authority, or any other governmental agency or instrumentality."

That sounds simple, right?  They should be exempt.  After all, libraries are considered, in some contexts, nigh-governmental entities.

But as many know, a public library's status as "governmental" ebbs and flows.

Here are just two recent examples:

Example #1: 2020 brought an interesting development when, after months of anxious curiosity, the NY Forward "powers that be" confirmed that public libraries were always considered to be exempt from the Executive Orders shutting down private businesses (and instead, were to follow the mandates governing local municipalities).  So: a governmental entity.

Example #2: A noteworthy new case[3] from NY's second-highest court has found that for purposes of the Prevailing Wage Act (Section 230 of the NY Labor Law), a public library is NOT "the state, any of its political subdivisions, a public benefit corporation, a public authority or commission or special purpose district board appointed pursuant to law, and a board of education."[4]  In other works:  not a governmental entity.

So, when it comes to this new law, I can't point to any definite authority either way; just because one part of the Labor Law excludes libraries, doesn't mean another does.  And certainly, we have no case law yet.  That said, if I HAD to pick, I would err on the side of caution and say that public libraries, which are education corporations with their own governance structures (just as the Court commented in "Executive Cleaning"), have to comply with the HERO Act.

Since the stakes are high for non-compliance, any public library that decides the HERO Act doesn't apply to them (and that's fine to reach a different conclusion; I am not omniscient, nor do I have a crystal ball) should:

1) Get that opinion, in writing, from an attorney retained to give advice to that library specifically, and considering its unique position under the law;

AND

2) Confirm the library is in compliance with New York Labor Law 27-a, which covers workplace safety in "the state, any political subdivision of the state, a public authority or any other governmental agency or instrumentality thereof."

The bottom line on this: when it comes to occupational safety, a public library can't fall into a hole between the mandates governing public and private entities: it either has to follow the rules of a "governmental instrumentality" employing people as government employees (and giving them all the protections government employees get under the law) OR it is following the rules of a private education corporation (and giving them all the protections private employees get under the law).

Since the HERO Act is really about taking all the protocols the State of New York developed in response to COVID, and ensuring they are on hand and ready for the next pandemic,[5] a library can't go wrong by having "an exposure prevention plan available, upon request, to all employees, employee representatives, collective bargaining representatives, independent contractors, the department of labor, and the department of health."[6]  By making a clear decision about what safety rules apply to your library, and developing a plan to follow them, you can not only comply with the law, but show that the library is working to keep employees safe.

Thank you for an important question.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

Behold, the humble skateboarder: wheels spinning, scabby knees, and (if they have gotten over the fact that even when worn by Tony Hawk, it looks dorky) brain carefully protected by helmet, ready for action.  Never has a humble sport posed more of a challenge to local governments, park designers, architects, and urban planners; lay down a relatively smooth surface, and there they are, ready to challenge both gravity and the rules governing property.

As a lawyer who studies^[1] how the law impacts what people do--and how we do it--I find skateboarding fascinating.^[2]  Since at least the late 80's,^[3] in town meeting after town meeting, legal case after legal case,^[4] site design after site design, public authorities and property owners have attempted to control when and where people can skate (and bike, and rollerblade, and hang out while watching others do those things).

That we as a society often fail at such prohibitions and dissuasions is shown by the magnitude of letters-to-the-editor and news reporting regarding parking lot/ramp/sidewalk incident and injury.^[5]  It has also spawned an array of dangerous and off-putting site design, such as metal rivets on walkways and spikes on hardscaping.^[6]

Of course, this question is not about skateboards, but rather, about signage effective enough to reduce risky activity and to avoid liability while keeping library premises welcoming to everybody.^[7]

For any library, museum, or other public cultural institution wrestling with this issue, this poses a conundrum.  The mission of your institution is to be accessible, inclusive, and to serve your community.  Yet at the same time, the promotion of a safe parking lot and grounds during open hours is critical...while after-hours promotion of safety is just as important (especially if you offer 24-hour Wi-Fi that is accessible in the parking lot and grounds). 

How can an institution achieve this balance?

For an institution confronted by this issue, there is a five-step process that must be conducted:

STEP ONE: Confirm who legally owns and/or controls the parking lot and grounds.^[8]  Does your library own the lot, or is it rented and subject to the terms of a lease?  What you learn during this step will show who has to solve this issue (with a landlord, collaboration will be required).

STEP TWO:  What insurance covers the lot, and what types of incidents are covered?  This step will provide insight into how your institution is set up to manage the risks you've identified.

STEP THREE:  What is the purpose of the parking lot and grounds?  What functions do those resources serve?  Hopefully, the uses are already limited to only things that serve the mission and plan of service of the library.  However, in the case of a lease or shared premises, that might not be the case.

STEP FOUR:  Confirm and harmonize everything from the first three steps. 

This fourth step sounds simple, but it can take many forms. 

For instance:

NOTE: For these reasons (and more), whenever, possible, "Step Four" should be done with a lawyer.

STEP FIVE: Only after completing Steps "One" through "FOUR" should a library board approve a signage plan.

Why these steps?  Because the details they draw out will help your library determine the final text of the signage, whittling it down from many permutations.  For instance:

In addition to helping your library check all the boxes (ownership, risk management, mission, messaging), I advise this approach because it will position your library to give your signage some personality...something that projects the library’s values and mission out into the community.

For instance, there is nothing wrong, after your property/purpose/insurance analysis, with posting a friendly sign like this:

"Our parking lot is for the safety and convenience of

our Library's diverse and wonderful community.

Please limit your use of our lot to parking your bike or car

while using the services of the library."

Or, if the "personality" of your library is a bit less celebratory, and there has been collaboration with local law enforcement on the issue, and it has been determined that it is safest to employ some forceful messaging, the signage can say:

"Parking lot use limited to parking for

library patrons, employees, and vendors.

POLICE ENFORCED."^[11]

Which brings me to the member's actual question:

"Would something more specific like [listing barred activities] be a benefit or would it be worse because if they hurt themselves doing an activity other than those listed they can say they were in their right?"

As you can see, I do not recommend barring a list of activities--partly for the reason in the question, but more fundamentally, because a list of “forbidden” activities only invites quibbling during enforcement (see footnote 9), which creates a needless headache. 

In my experience, those who actually have to enforce a policy (a director, a security officer, a police officer, a municipal employee), should be meaningfully consulted during its development, and are better served by a final product that positions them to quote a broad definition of purpose, together with a bar on unrelated activity, such as:

"This parking lot is for parking only.

No recreational use allowed at any time."

And finally, let's talk about that all-important STEP SIX: Dealing with the Human Factor.

We all know this: an institution can install signage six feet high, in flaming letters, and if someone wants to trespass on it after hours, that signage will not stop them.

If that is true, what is the purpose of the signage?

The purpose of the signage is 1) to promote safety; 2) to reinforce mission; and 3) to be able to show that, if injury occurs, the library in no way encouraged, condoned, or sanctioned the activity that caused it (and in fact, forbid it).

Now, while that is important, there is one other thing I must get out there while we're talking about limiting premises liability: just as critical as clear, enforceable signage is ensuring that the library is not maintaining a hazardous condition.

Why?  If the injury a trespasser experiences on property is related to a known defective condition (a pothole, for instance, or a heaved sidewalk) the owner/controller of the parking lot could still face liability.  To truly promote safety and guard against liability, an owner who invites the public onto their land must be able to show it was not "on notice" about the defect, or that if it was, it had taken adequate steps to protect the public from the hazard (surrounding the pothole by cones, or getting it temporarily filled with cold patch, for instance).

This is why a vigorous facility maintenance plan and deferred maintenance/contingency repair budget is just as--if not more--critical as proper parking lot signage.

In closing, I have to say: writing effective property signage is a tricky thing.^[12]   Since there is no perfect way to do it, I advise aiming for something that clearly limits the use of the restricted property to its core function (in this case, parking), while also reinforcing the identity of the library as a community resource.  Here is a model to consider (after your library follows all the steps):

"To promote a safe and welcoming environment,

this parking lot is for parking and library-approved events only.

All other uses must be approved in writing by the library.

To inquire about using our lot for a community event, call ###-###-####."

...with shorter, smaller, punchier signs at key areas to reinforce the core message:

"No playing in our parking lot at any time.

Safety first!"

I wish all libraries reading this a reduced-risk, injury-free parking lot.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

"Is this legal?"  Not likely.

But before I say more, I just want to offer a quick primer on how things work at "Ask the Lawyer."

Since the situation depicted in the question could result in legal claims by the Director, the board, and/or even the Town--or be relevant to an audit by the State Comptroller--this is the type of "Ask the Lawyer" question that can only be answered--really answered--under attorney-client privilege.

Why is that?  Because of how "Ask the Lawyer” works.  When questions like this are submitted (questions that ask for advice and guidance for the requesting member and their council, as joint clients[1]), our typical approach is to a) contact the member, b) get any additional information needed to assess the question, and then c) send an attorney-client privileged answer. [2]

After that, if the member consents to it, we create a "generic" answer, channeling the research gathered into general advice that may be useful for a broad audience (of libraries, museums, historical societies, and other regional council members).

This question, of course, presents an issue mostly relevant to public libraries.  And here is the "generic" answer to the scenario presented:

There are a number of factors an attorney needs to dig into in order to answer this question.

First: is the director an hourly employee, or salaried?  If salaried, this question doesn't make much sense,[3] so we'll go with hourly.

Second: Is the director required as part of their job to attend the meeting?  Since they are mostly there in their professional capacity, let's say "yes."

Third:  Did the director, in the past, report the hours into the payroll system, and receive compensation for them?  Let's again say "yes."

Fourth: Has the board consistently performed the aspects of board authority over the position (making the decision to hire, signing the hiring letter, performing annual reviews, working with Civil Service to amend the job description when needed, effecting disciplinary action and plans of improvement if needed, approving payroll,[4] approving scheduled vacation times, overseeing time off for disability, effecting termination)?  Again, from the scenario, we'll say "yes," which means the board has not laid a foundation for the lines of employment to be blurred (they are undisputedly in charge).

Fifth: Has the previous payroll, which included compensation for attending the meetings, been approved per the requirements of the Civil Service law?[5]  While that may be something happening subtly behind the scenes, based on the scenario, again it is probably "yes."

If we added those details to the scenario, I would see no basis for a town official to be able to unilaterally decide what tasks may or may not be compensated.

In fact, the only way I could see a town official being able to (legitimately) do such a thing is if the library board had expressly delegated all authority for supervision and payroll oversight to the town...something that would be a dangerous practice, since it would seriously undercut the library board's autonomy and authority.

The courts in New York, the State Comptroller,[6] the State Attorney General, and local Civil Service agencies all grasp the nuances of public library boards' authority, but it can be a struggle for newer public officers.  The autonomy and authority of a library board can often feel like a square peg to a public official used to only round holes.  That is why it is important to nurture the relationship routinely, deliberately, and carefully.[7]

What can be done in this case?  To avoid a claim of unpaid wages, a library board would need to develop a plan to put things right.  There are a number of ways to approach this, but I'd start out by enlisting the help of the local Civil Service, who can confirm that the library is a separate employer, with an obligation to confirm their employees' hours.[8] In the alternative, a good resource who may take a similar technical approach could be the municipality's attorney.

Since all that could take some time, if the board wants to vote to adjust the payroll (ensuring the payment is properly subject to taxes and withholding, etc.), the board may also want to enlist the help of the State Comptroller (the authority that audits public library payroll from time-to-time).  How would a library do that?  Prior to any adjustment, it would be a good idea to confirm the basis for the correcting payment in writing with the Comptroller, after which the board could resolve to make the adjusting payment (since the minutes of the meeting, and the meeting itself, are a public record, this is a good exercise in transparency).

Because of the risks involved in compensation-related matters, if at all possible, this type of challenge is a good one to work through with an attorney.[9]

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

Over and over again, I am floored by the care, tenacity, and creativity of the libraries determined to provide services in a time of pandemic.  New York's libraries just don't give up.  This question shows the mechanics of that fighting spirit.

So much of what we do in this pandemic comes back to why we are doing things in this pandemic.  For many libraries, the "why" of offering services is making sure their communities have lifelines to professionally curated information.

For this question, the "why" of asking for proof of vaccination is right there in the submission's core:

... so that we can have some sense of how many employees have been vaccinated, if that is to somehow figure into any decisions we might need to make re: staffing and proximity to others, or any considerations for the possible liability of "direct threat" to others by those who either choose not to get vaccinated, or are awaiting vaccination eligibility?

Let's take that "direct threat" part first.

Back on March 19, 2020, we addressed a question about employer (library) liability due to Coronavirus exposure.  Although much has changed since that time (we have vaccines), the basic recipe for liability has not changed: liability happens when a person/entity owes a duty of care to a person, does not perform that duty, and the failure results in damage.

Because if this recipe, it is essential for libraries to always know what "duty of care" they owe their workers, and their community.

In a pandemic, evolving data and resulting best practices can change the "duty of care" rapidly (No masks? One mask? Two?).

While many resources are aggregating and pushing out up-to-the-minute guidance on "best practices," there are only three places libraries in the State of New York should be drawing their duty of care practices directly from: the New York State Department of Health ("NYSDOH"), the Centers for Disease Control ("CDC"), and the Occupational Hazard and Safety Administration ("OSHA").

Right now, as of this writing, OSHA's 1/29/2021 workplace guidance[1] for mitigating the impact of COVID-19 lists 16 "elements" of an effective COVID protection program.  Here is what OSHA recommends about using awareness of vaccination status of employees:

Not distinguishing between workers who are vaccinated and those who are not: Workers who are vaccinated must continue to follow protective measures, such as wearing a face covering and remaining physically distant, because at this time, there is not evidence that COVID-19 vaccines prevent transmission of the virus from person-to-person. The CDC explains that experts need to understand more about the protection that COVID-19 vaccines provide before deciding to change recommendations on steps everyone should take to slow the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19.

So right now, the "duty of care" set out by OSHA expressly excludes relying on vaccination status to reduce the spread of the virus.  Rather, it focuses on providing and insisting on appropriate PPE.

That said, in the same guidance, OSHA continues to recommend allowing employees who self-identify as medically vulnerable to swap tasks to limit risk:

Offer vulnerable workers duties that minimize their contact with customers and other workers (e.g., restocking shelves rather than working as a cashier), if the worker agrees to this.

This means if a person, relying on their vaccination status, decides to not self-identify as medically vulnerable, the employer is not advised to offer them contact-minimizing duties.

There are other steps on the current OSHA list that the member is already doing.  By enabling the use of PTO for vaccination, they are following the guidance in element "14":

Making a COVID-19 vaccine or vaccination series available at no cost to all eligible employees. Provide information and training on the benefits and safety of vaccinations.

This guidance, I imagine, will evolve.  That evolution should be reflected in revised Safety Plans.

And with that said, let's answer the member's specific questions:

Can or should be asking for proof of vaccination from *all* employees, so that we can have some sense of how many employees have been vaccinated, if that is to somehow figure into any decisions we might need to make re: staffing and proximity to others, or any considerations for the possible liability of "direct threat" to others by those who either choose not to get vaccinated, or are awaiting vaccination eligibility?
 

Based on the current OSHA guidance, along with guidance from the EEOC, the answer to this is "yes," and then "no."  Yes, an employer can ask for proof of vaccination (whether acquired on PTO or off-hours).[2]  No, right now, it should not be used for assignment of duties[3] or with the idea of reducing possible liability.

Here is the member's follow-up question:

If it is desirable or permissible for us to obtain proof of vaccination universally, should compliance by the employee be optional/voluntary or compulsory?

Based on the current OSHA guidance, along with guidance from the EEOC, right now does not seem like the time to rely on vaccination status and data to make determinations about workplace risk management and safety.  So while requiring a notification of vaccination status may be permissible, it does not appear desirable if its purpose is to mitigate concerns about liability.

If, however, the motivation is to verify that the library is effectively encouraging the most employees possible to get vaccinated—simply for the employees' own personal health and safety—then yes, tracking those metrics (and any non-disability factors barring vaccinations) might not only be permissible, but desirable. In that case, the question is: does the information need to be tied directly to a particular employee, or is it just as meaningful if anonymous?

Which brings us to the member's last question:

But how do (or can) I share specifics on who has been vaccinated (versus who has not) with others, such as supervisors and managers?...I would be leery of divulging such information, out of concerns for maintaining employee confidentiality...

This HR manager knows their stuff!

First, yes: no matter what, never create a risk of trampling on employees' privacy.

Second: Right now, it appears that sharing such information is unnecessary.

In a December 18th, 2020 "Ask the Lawyer," I stated that a vaccine requirement should only be implemented if it is part of a well-thought-out, board-approved Safety Plan.  Right now, it appears that no Safety Plan should rely on a vaccine requirement to reduce transmission of the virus.  With that in mind, right now, it appears the safest course of action –both COVID-wise, and legally—is to encourage vaccination, but not require it, and if a library tracks it, only do it for purposes of encouraging more employee vaccinations (or finding out you've hit close to 100%).

Of course, here we are on February 26, 2021.  If you are reading this in March, or April, or that sunny, warmer time in the future, May and beyond[4], this answer might no longer apply.

Keep checking with NYSDOH, with the CDC, and of course, with OSHA.  At some point, requiring vaccination—or allocating duties by vaccination status—could become something expected of an employer.  If that happens, a library's "duty of care" could change, altering the threshold for liability, and the answer to these questions could shift—some subtly, some not-so-subtly. 

But we have had a lot of twists and turns in the Pandemic.  That "shift" may or may not happen.[5]  As I often say at my office, "the only plan we can make is that the plan will change."  And how do you plan for that?  By doing what this member has done: keeping employees' well-being and safety at the forefront, and adapting every time the data and guidance change. 

If your library does that, you'll be as safe as you can be.  And mitigate your liability.

Thank you for a thoughtful question.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

I am glad the column is helpful, but this issue really shows the limits of the law!

Before I say what I mean, I need to emphasize three things:

1. State and federal law often protects employees who complain about "working conditions."[1] Since an odor is a "working condition," no matter what position a library takes on "bad" smell (barring it as a disturbance, allowing it as a matter of mission, or a solution somewhere in between), leadership should carefully listen to employees' concerns.

2. While my November 17th answer mused there are several compelling reasons to opt for a more inclusive solution (like use of a "scent free" zone), I want to re-emphasize: that is not what the law requires.  Rather, the law requires that people not be barred from library access on the basis of disability or protected characteristics.  Since that is a slippery slope, not barring people on the basis of smell (or using a "scent free zone") is a good way to stay in a legally safe zone. 

But barring disturbing odors, if done carefully, is still allowed by law.

3.  Although I imagine that the member submitting the question didn't mean "taking sides" literally, because it is so critical, I have to say: library employees should never perceptibly "take sides" with one patron against another patron, even if they privately agree that a patron's odor is off-putting.[2]  This is because if access is going to be limited, the library must be able to show fair and equitable treatment.  An employee with a concern, of course, can take it directly (and discretely) to their supervisor.

So with all that said...

From the legal perspective, the key on the employee side of the "smell" issue is to listen to employees' bona fide concerns about their working conditions.  This is true whether your library decides to bar certain smells as "distractions," or to find creative ways that, ultimately, might expose an employee to an unwelcome smell.  Above all, whatever approach is taken, it should be clearly set out in a written policy, and decisions under that policy should be well-documented.  And to address concerns like the one raised by the member, to the greatest extent possible, the policy should be written with the input of employees, who should also be trained on how to work with it.

But that said...

Does this mean some employees, believing their library should have a more inclusive policy, might have to enforce a restrictive policy?  Yes.

Does this mean some employees, not liking their library's more inclusive policy, may have to work near a person whose smell they do not like?  Yes.

This is what I mean by "the limits of the law."  The law can help libraries foster positive working conditions and employee morale—to a point.  After that, it is down to leadership, well-developed polices, and good employee relations.

This is why people often like their HR director more than their lawyer!

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

The member's caution shows how important it is to get this one right.

Before delving into it, I want to say: for public libraries with a union, this is one to confer with union leadership on. 

For public libraries without a union, it will be good to think about not only your internal prioritization, but the messaging around it. 

And for all libraries connecting their employees to vaccine, this is one to plan in careful coordination with a board committee, your lawyer, and your local health department.

With the right participants at the table[1] and careful consideration of ethics and privacy, finding the right plan for you won't be easy, but you will get it right.

This question is about the "ethics and privacy" part of the process. For a public institution that will be part of this rollout, the State of New York's own ethical statement and guidelines for prioritization are a good place to start.  Here they are:

New York State based its COVID-19 vaccine distribution and administration process on ten guiding principles.

1. Safety: New York State will only endorse and distribute a COVID-19 vaccine if it is determined to be safe and will only be used according to the indication under which it received its authorization or license. This includes continued monitoring and reporting of adverse events after the vaccine is licensed and administered.
2. Effectiveness: New York State will only endorse and distribute a COVID-19 vaccine if it is demonstrated to be appropriately effective in the populations intended for use.
3. Expert approved: New York State will rely on the advice and counsel of recognized clinical experts and scientists to review and approve the safety and effectiveness of every vaccine that is authorized by the federal government for distribution.
4. Equitable & clinically driven distribution: New York State’s COVID-19 vaccine distribution plan will be based on standards that prioritize people at higher risk of exposure, illness and/or poor outcome. Unrelated factors, such as wealth or status, will not influence distribution.
5. Transparency: Throughout the COVID-19 crisis, the state’s daily public presentation of facts and reliance on science and medical expertise helped build public trust and confidence in government action. New York State will continue to be transparent regarding all aspects of the COVID-19 vaccine distribution, administration, and monitoring process to ensure New Yorkers are fully informed.
6. Use of Data: Coordination of a successful vaccination program will require robust tracking, data and analytics capabilities. New York State will use powerful data and information technology platforms to guide all parts of the COVID-19 vaccine distribution and administration process to maximize safety, accuracy, and efficiency and meet all federal reporting requirements — all while maintaining patient privacy.
7. Privacy and Patient Safety: New York State will ensure all vaccination processes prioritize patient safety, and all information systems guarantee patient privacy. Vaccination does not take away the importance of other public health measures that have served us well in the fight against COVID-19. New Yorkers will be urged to continue to practice social distancing, mask wearing, hand washing, and other measures.
8. Partnership, Coordination & Public Outreach: New York State recognizes that coordination with local organizations and community providers is essential to the safe and successful distribution and administration of COVID-19 vaccines. The state’s outreach efforts will especially focus on reaching underserved, hard to reach, and vaccine-hesitant populations, as well as those at highest risk for COVID-19 infection and poor outcomes.
9. State Leadership: New York State expects federal engagement on vaccine vetting, distribution, administration, and funding. However, regardless of the level of federal engagement, New York State will take all necessary steps and require local coordination with the state’s centralized approach to ensure an efficient and organized vaccine distribution.
10. NEW YORK TOUGH: Throughout this COVID-19 crisis, New Yorkers have shown that there is nothing we cannot do if we work together as one community. Our approach to the COVID-19 vaccine will be tough, strong, united, disciplined, and loving.

Informed by these guiding principles, each library can consider its unique policies, Safety Plan, and if relevant, collective bargaining agreement (union contract), and confirm its own internal method of prioritizing.

While these variables will make each library's position unique, the best way to confirm and follow the method of prioritization they decide on is to:

            1) Adopt a written policy;

            2) Document that it is being followed consistently;

            3) Notify the employees and the public as to how the process will be implemented.

Here are an "example policy" and "example notice" drawn from the State's approach:

[**START EXAMPLE POLICY**]

[NAME] Library Vaccine Distribution Policy [Employees Only]

[**EXAMPLE ONLY**]

Policy

In step with the method of prioritization being applied by the State of New York, [NAME] Library's COVID-19 vaccine employee distribution plan will be based on "levels" that prioritize people at higher risk of exposure, illness and/or poor outcome.

Definitions and Levels

"Higher risk of illness and/or poor outcome" means that a medical condition makes it potentially more likely the employee could become ill, or, if they do become ill, are statistically more likely to experience a poor outcome; such need shall be considered "Level 1(d)." 

"Higher risk of exposure" means those who, working within the parameters of the Library's current safety plan, PPE requirements, and operations:

• Perform any function or share any criteria required for vaccination during the New York Department of Health's Vaccine Distribution Phases 1a and 1b (including those 65 and older), but did not obtain the vaccine; such need shall be considered "Level 1(a/b)".
• Must report to work on site and physically interact with the public as part of their routine job duties, and/or handle circulating materials; such need shall also be considered "Level 1".
• Must report to work on site as part of their job duties; such need shall be considered "Level 2".
• Performing all work duties 100% remotely; such need shall be considered "Level 3".

Procedure for 1(d) requests

Any Level 1(d) requests for vaccination shall be confidential.  When supplies are available to the Library, employees who self-identify as at "higher risk of illness and/or poor outcome" may request COVID vaccination through the same confidential process used to request and arrange disability accommodations, with the understanding that during this time of extra burden on medical providers, documentation of the condition creating the need may be supplied after vaccination (please supply a note from your physician when you are able).

A request for vaccination may be considered separately or together with accommodations based on disability.

Procedure

Any employee may request vaccination. 

When supply and demand require prioritization, the order of priority shall be:

          Levels 1 (any type): highest priority

          Level 2 and with a member of their immediate household with higher risk of illness and/or poor outcome: second highest priority

          Level 2: third highest priority

          Level 3 and with a member of their immediate household with higher risk of illness and/or poor outcome: fourth highest priority

          Level 3: fifth highest priority

          All others: lowest level of priority

If further prioritization is required to prioritize between Level 1 employees, the order of priority shall be:

          Level 1 (a/b)

          Level 1(d)

          Level 1 (any type) and with a member of their immediate household with higher risk of illness and/or poor outcome

          Level 1

If an employee is selected for vaccination through the library, the employee will be expected to follow all the rules and procedures for vaccination. 

Employees not selected will be placed on a wait list in order of priority.[2]

The Director, or their designee, shall be responsible for compliance with this policy.

         [**END EXAMPLE POLICY**]

[**START EXAMPLE NOTICE**]

[NAME] Library Vaccine Opportunity Notice

[**EXAMPLE ONLY**]

DATE: [INSERT]

The Library has been issued # doses of COVID-19 vaccine.  We expect to be able to initiate vaccinations on DATE.

As determined by the attached policy, the Library will be offering vaccination through our allotment to as many employees as possible. 

Vaccination is voluntary.

Please transmit your interest in being vaccinated and your assessment as to the level of priority you fall into (see the policy) to name@address by DATE.

For example: "I am voluntarily requesting vaccination through the library's allotted doses.  I believe my priority level is "1."

Requests that include medical disclosures will be treated confidentially.

If the library is able to grant your request, we will send you information regarding next steps, and you will be expected to follow all the rules and procedures for vaccination.  Employees not selected will be placed on a wait list in order of priority. 

Supplies are limited.  If you have the opportunity to be vaccinated through another supplier, we encourage you to do so.  Employees may use up to a day of sick leave for each vaccination session.[3]  The library places the highest priority on the health of our employees.

[**END EXAMPLE NOTICE**]

Final notes from the lawyer:

These are early days for the vaccine and vaccination rollout.  While being prepared with a policy is the right move, prior to announcing any prioritization, after adopting a policy, be ready to be flexible, since the situation is changing rapidly. 

As with all major policies, this is one that ideally will be adopted via a vote by your board.[4] Here is a sample resolution for you:

BE IT RESOLVED, that after due consideration of the "guiding principles" of the State of New York and the library's own code of ethics, that the Library adopt the attached "Library Vaccine Distribution Policy" and "Notice;" and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the [insert] committee shall work with the Director to monitor the need to revise this policy, based on any new guidance, knowledge, or operational needs.

I wish you good health, strength, and fortitude as we move into this next phase of overcoming the pandemic.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

This is an incredibly sensitive, important, and complex set of questions.  I know a lot of people out there in "library land" are waiting on the answer—from many different perspectives.

So we're going to take it slow, break it down, and unpack the components of the answers one step at a time.

Step 1: Considering requiring immunization to COVID-19 as part of a library's evolving Safety Plan

As I have emphasized in numerous pandemic-related answers, any library operating in any capacity right now should have a trustee-approved Safety Plan tailored to its unique operations.  The plan should evolve as new safety-related information emerges, and as library operations change.

As of this writing,^[1] some libraries are open to visit.  Some are doing only curbside.  Some are offering more remote programming.  Some have used their information management and lending capacity to distribute PPE, food, and living supplies.  Because of this diversity of service, they all should have different Safety Plans.

The Safety Plan of a library closed to the public for everything but curbside will be different from the Safety Plan of a library open for socially distant use of computers and lending.  The Safety Plan of a library distributing fresh produce will be different from a library streaming programming from its community room to an audience within its area of service (and beyond).  The Safety Plan of a library operating with ten on-site staff in December should be different from the one they used when there was only one employee on-site in June.

Just like the decision to use a particular mode of sanitization, as a library undertakes and changes its unique services, the decision to require immunization of employees should start with vaccination's role not as a stand-alone solution, but as part of an overall approach to limiting the impact of the pandemic on your library, its employees, and your community.  Do the services your library needs to provide the community warrant immunization of employees?  If so, keep reading.

Step 2:  Wait, so does what you said in "Step 1" mean a public library can go ahead and require employees to be vaccinated?

Yes...and NO.

I say "yes," because under the right conditions, the law does allow employers to impose conditions for safety, and that can include mandatory vaccination.^[2]  However, I also say "NO," because the phrase "the right conditions" carries a lot of complexity for three little words.  To be safe, the default assumption of a library^[3] should always be that it can't require immunization of its employees...and then work to find the way, if well-informed risk management and an updated Safety Plan warrants it, it can require immunizations (and just as critically, if it should).

Step 3: Assessing if a library can require vaccination of employees

Before a library gets too far into an internal debate about if it should amend its Safety Plan to require vaccination of employees, it should assess if it is in a position to do so.  This means having an experienced HR administrator or attorney look at the organization's bylaws, policies, and employment relationships to see if there are any steps or bars to the requirement.

What could such a bar look like?  The most common impediment a library will run into on this is an employment contract—either for individual employees, or with an entire employee union (a "collective bargaining agreement").  The bottom line on this type of impediment: if there is a contract in play, a library must be very tactical, collaborative, and strategic prior to creating—or even considering—immunization as an employment condition.^[4]

Another bar might be language in an employee handbook or a pre-pandemic policy.  Still another might be that "gray area" when library employees are considered employees of a school district, village, or town.

The best overall guidance I can offer on this Step is: assessing if your library is positioned to require immunization is a critical step to using vaccination as a tool in your Safety Plan.  Bring in a ringer to help your library assess the extent of what it can do.

Step 4:  Assessing if a library should require vaccination of employees

Okay, let's say you consulted with the best employment lawyer in your village/town/district, they took a close look at whatever relevant contracts and policies your library has, and they have said: "No problem, you can require this."^[5]

The next important thing to consider is: should your library require this?

Compelled immunization^[6] is an incredibly sensitive area of policy and law.  Since the time Ben Franklin started insisting on smallpox immunizations,^[7] this public health issue has had passionate rhetoric on both sides of the debate. 

I have worked with families whose children have documented contraindications for certain vaccines, and it is not a simple issue.  And right now, a public discussion is happening about why people who are African-American might not trust being offered a first round of vaccination.^[8]  These are life-and-death issues.

That said, those on the front lines of public service, during a time of pandemic, are at higher risk of both getting infected, and spreading disease.  Science shows vaccination will mitigate that risk.  Thus, under the right circumstances, encouraging such employees to be vaccinated is the right thing to do, and in some cases, employers have made the decision that requiring vaccination is the right thing to do.

The consideration of this question is classic risk management.  What critical services is your library providing to the community?  What exposure to possible infection do those services create?  Does social distancing, PPE, and sanitization mitigate those risks within acceptable tolerances, or would requiring vaccination of employees demonstrably make those employees and the community safer?  Are there certain duties that merit requiring immunization, and other duties (jobs performed 100% remotely, for instance) that do not?  And critical: is mass employee immunization in step with the approach of your local health department?^[9]

There is no cookie-cutter answer to these questions, but a responsible decision to require immunization of employees as part of a well-developed and evolving Safety Plan should answer them all.

Step 5:  Developing a robust policy that includes consideration of civil rights, the ADA^[10] and privacy

So, let's say your library has followed Steps "1" through "4" and has decided it can, and should, update its Safety Plan to encourage or require immunization of employees.

The next step is developing a policy that:

• Demonstrably does not discriminate or have an unintentional disparate impact on any protected class of people (race, religion, sex, etc.);
• Has appropriate measures for people to opt-out based on a disability accommodation under the ADA or the New York Human Rights Law;
• Protects the privacy of those who either meet the requirement, are granted an accommodation to not meet the requirement, or who must be terminated due to refusal to meet the requirement.^[11]
• Manages liability through good planning and the transmission of accurate information, not (just) waivers of liability.[12]

I also suggest that the library strongly consider ensuring, well in advance, that: 1) the vaccine is available to employees, and 2) that employees don’t have to pay for it.  This is because 1) once the library has identified that there are risks in its operations that would be best mitigated through immunization, those activities should be limited until the mitigation is in place, and 2) there can be legal complications if the vaccination requires personal expense.  While this advance planning and cost containment is not precisely a legal compliance concern, they are close first cousins, and should be addressed as part of the Safety Plan. 

Step 6: If a library decides to require immunization, develop a PR Plan (optional, but a very good idea)

I don't need to tell a library audience that what a public library does on this topic will be scrutinized, criticized, and eventually, also a model for the rest of your community.^[13]  Since any decision on this point will have its critics, and also (hopefully) its fans, be ready to let your public know, simply and straightforwardly, the basis for your library's decision.

I like the classic "FAQ" approach.  Here are two model FAQ's for two libraries that did the legal analysis and safety assessment, and come to the following decisions:

FAQ: I was told the library board is requiring all the employees to be vaccinated for COVID, is that true?

FAQ ANSWER: Since re-opening on DATE, the NAME Library has had a Safety Plan.  Now our Safety Plan does include supporting voluntary immunization of employees.

FAQ:  Voluntary?  So you are not requiring it?

FAQ ANSWER:  Our risk analysis and still-limited operations showed that we could meet the community's needs by requiring masks, social distancing, and routine sanitization.  We have now added supporting employees in getting vaccinated on a voluntary basis.

FAQ:  Will you ever require it?

FAQ ANSWER:  Only if our operations change and an updated risk analysis shows us that it is best for our employees and for the community.

Another "FAQ" example, for a library that came to a different conclusion, is:

FAQ: I was told the board is requiring all the employees to be vaccinated for COVID, is that true?

FAQ ANSWER: Since re-opening on DATE, the NAME Library has had a Safety Plan.  Now our Safety Plan does include mandatory immunization of employees who are able to be vaccinated.

FAQ:  Why is the library requiring employees to get vaccinated?

FAQ ANSWER:  Feedback shows that the community needs us providing critical services right now.  Our risk analysis showed that in addition to requiring masks, social distancing, and sanitizations, immunization by employees would protect their health, and the community's, while we provide those services.

FAQ:  The vaccine is not 100% available yet.  Did your employees have to do this on their own?

FAQ ANSWER:  Our library worked with [INSTITUTION] to make sure our employees had access to this safety measure, without cost to them.

And that's it.^[14]

The important take-away I want to emphasize here is that for individual libraries, there are no quick answers to these questions.

Libraries of all types will be assessing their unique legal and risk positions, and will need to make carefully documented and executed decisions.  Libraries within larger institutions may need to fight for consideration separate from other operations.  Public libraries will need to consider the heightened transparency and public accountability they operate under.  Library systems will be thinking about how they can protect their employees while also supporting their members.  And for the employee on the ground, they'll be thinking about keeping themselves, their families, and their communities safe.

By taking careful, deliberate, and well-informed steps, the answers to the member's questions can be found.

Thank you for a vital question.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

There is a large array of case law,[1] academic articles, industry guidance, and news coverage on the subject of regulating smells in libraries (specifically, the smells of people and/or their belongings in libraries).[2]

Based on those materials—and in particular, the case law—my answer to the question "legally is this allowed?" has to be: YES.  With a carefully considered policy, carefully followed, barring library patrons based on their "disturbing" odor has been ruled to be legal, just like barring other factors that disturb the operations of the library (noise, eating, running) can be.

But just because a library can bar "disturbing odor" doesn't mean I always advise my clients to do it.

Why?  Because this is 2020.

In 2020, we know that the impact of barring people based solely on them being "disturbing" is fraught with risk,[3] both for legal reasons (claims based on the First Amendment, equal protection, due process, disability, etc.) and for reasons related to a library's mission (concerns related to the type of existential considerations raised by the member). [4]

Of course, in 2020, we also know that regardless of where you land on the question of "disturbing odor," this issue poses concerns from the other side, as well; a patron or employee trying to access or work in a library may find a smell (whether caused by another person, or by a condition of the building) to present an actual risk to their health (allergies, chemical sensitivities).  So one person's access to the library may pose a risk to the access of another.

Finally, in 2020, while nothing is a sure bet, it is reasonable to expect that one of these days, one of the legal cases challenging a library's bar to access based on a "disturbing odor" is going to result in a policy or ejection being overturned.  And while that currently-hypothetical case may turn on circumstances unique enough[5] to not bar all such policies, such a ruling could throw the current legal footing into question.

Which is why I offer this: rather than barring people due to "disturbing odor"[6] (which as the member points out, is a conclusion rooted in subjectivity) a library might be wise to consider planning, policies and action to:

• Create "Scent-free zones" in your library where any perceptible odors, mold, dust, and use of substances associated with chemical sensitivities, are as minimized as possible.  This can address the needs of people who are more sensitive to perfumes, chemical cleaners, and air fresheners...reducing the likelihood of complaints and concerns under the ADA.
• When planning capital improvements, invest in an HVAC system that circulates fresh air into library spaces (with all due consideration to humidity control for your collection), reducing the accumulation/proliferation of all odors, and in general creating a healthier breathing environment.
• Place seating near areas with more effective ventilation, and configure spaces to deter concentrations of patrons in less ventilated zones.
• And most critically: Develop policies to address objective, quantifiable health hazards that might be signaled by smell, rather than barring subjective and hard-to-measure "disturbing odors."

It is this last bullet—related to safety—that I would like to dwell on.

Some smells are just that—smells.  They may be perceived negatively, and perhaps even as a disruption, but to most people, they pose no risk. 

Some smells are not just smells, but "tells"—byproducts indicative of conditions that are experienced by the individual carrying them (like it or not, we all have these).  Some may be linked to a medical condition or disability, but in no way do they pose a safety threat to others.    Many people who are perceived as "smelly" have "tells".

And finally, some smells are indicative of a potential health hazard to those in their proximity; for example: sulfur added to otherwise odorless natural gas, the odor of certain paints as they dry...or the smell of a staph infection in an open wound.  These "evidence of danger" smells are the ones that libraries, who are legally obligated[7] to provide their patrons and employees with a safe environment, need to be concerned about, and should develop policies to address.

Need an anecdote to distinguish the smells from the tells from the hazards?  Here's a scenario:

A man walks to the library.  While walking, he treads in dog poop.

Because decades of smoking cigarettes have dulled the man's sense of smell, he does not notice that his shoe is coated in poop.  However, as soon as he enters the library, a page smells the poop, and points out to the patron that not only is his shoe smelly, but it is leaving fecal residue on the floor.[8]

Because there are many health-related reasons why the library doesn't want dog poop on its floor, the man is asked to leave until his shoe is poop-free.  The man leaves the library and visits his buddy across the street,[9] who lets him hose off his shoe in the back yard.

When the man returns to the library, he shows the page the clean shoe, and it is clear that the dog poop has been eliminated.  However, dog poop being what it is, the smell lingers on the shoe.  But insofar as the library is concerned, it no longer poses an active hazard to toddlers crawling on the Children's Room floor.  The man is allowed to walk into the library, selects the latest John Grisham novel, and leaves, the odor of dog poop lingering in the Circulation Desk breeze.

And that is the difference between using a smell to mitigate a health hazard, and tolerating a potentially disturbing odor in a library.  It is also how a library focuses on providing access and a safe environment for patrons and employees—while avoiding judgments rooted in subjectivity.

In posing this question, it is clear that the instructor is thinking about mission, about a library's role in its community, and about optimizing access to resources for all.  But the instructor has also honed in on this "subjectivity" concern, by asking: "Who is to decide what an acceptable/unacceptable level of smell"?

It is that very subjectivity that brings legal peril to the current scheme of things.  Sooner or later, the right combination of circumstances will arise, and a judge will rule that simply barring someone from a library based on nothing more than a bad stink is a legal violation.

Therefore, as we move past 2020, and into an era that will, all signs show, be more in need of information access and authentication than any era previously, I offer this template policy to "flip the script" on how libraries address the issue of odor. 

The ABC library is committed to access for all.  With regard to odors in the library, this means:

• We provide a designated scent-free area for patrons with chemical or scent sensitivities;
• We require any odor that is a sign of a possible health risk (hazardous chemical, fecal matter, rotting food, smoke, communicable infection or any substance that can damage the library or pose a risk to those in it) be addressed, and if a risk is likely to be present, mitigated immediately;
• We work to find people who may be bothered by certain non-harmful odors, such as perfume, cologne, or "body odor" of other patrons, space in our scent-free area, or near windows or well-ventilated areas.

We appreciate that as humans, our patrons bring a wide array of odors into our space, and not everyone appreciates that smell of others. If you need a scent-free area or well-ventilated area, please let us know.  If you notice any odor or other factor that could be indicative of a health hazard, please immediately alert staff so it can be addressed per our policies.

Meanwhile, the library's Code of Conduct should state some version of: Any activity or substance posing a health hazard to patrons and employees is prohibited.

And finally, internally, I suggest this protocol[10] for addressing reports of smells indicative of potential hazards:

Receive the report.  Note the date, time, person reporting it, and what is reported.  Ensure a qualified person immediately assesses the report.  If there is a possible health hazard, involve the appropriate personnel or outside resources to develop an immediate response/mitigation plan, with all due respect for safety, privacy, access, and due process.

And that's it.  From where I see it, while the status quo is legal, the future of "The Great Library Smell Debate" can shift to focus on two things: access, and safety.[11]  Factors that are subjective or based on personal preference ("bad smells" causing "disruption") are currently legally valid, but there is the possibility of a successful legal challenge.  If a library is concerned about the impact of such policies on mission, and wants to avoid subjective value judgments about smell, developing policies that focus on access and safety might be a more appropriate approach.

That said, to reiterate my honest answer to the question: right now, based on case law, "subjective" policies about "disturbing" odor, if narrowly tailored to serve a valid purpose[12], and executed properly, remain enforceable.  But as I have outlined, they can pose a risk. 

Make no mistake—sometimes odor needs to be addressed, and from many perspectives.  But the law provides many options, and using a focus on access and safety is one of them.

Thank you for a thoughtful question.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

I wish I could reply to this excellent question with a plain "yes" or "no." But I cannot.

Why not?  Because, while as the member points out, a public library's "type" is relevant to this question, what may also be relevant is how the employees are being paid.  So answering this question requires a two-factor analysis:

Factor 1: Is the library in question considered a "type" of "governmental agency^[1]?"

AND/OR

Factor 2: are the employees of that library compensated as if they were employees of a governmental agency?

If the answer to either question is "yes," Labor Law 196-b (which is the new "sick leave" law) doesn't apply.  If the answer to both is "no," then it may be time for the non-exempt library to draft a new Sick Leave Policy.

Now let's talk about the factors in this "two-factor test."

Factor 1: Is the library in question considered a "type" of "governmental agency?

Most libraries in the state of New York are NOT "governmental agencies" as that term is used in Labor Law Article 6 ^[2].

Sure, the library has to account for taxpayer money as required by the "General Municipal Law."  And yes, it is subject to parts of the "Public Officers Law."  And yep—it may even have to disclose certain records under the Freedom of Information Law. 

But none of that means they are performing a function of a "governmental agency" as defined under the Labor Law, which is where the new "sick leave" rules come from.  Under the Labor Law, a public library is far more likely to be considered a not-for-profit education corporation required to offer sick leave (and provide Workers' Compensation Insurance, and follow the NY Minimum wage laws...), than an exempt entity like a school district.

Now that being said, even if a library is not a "governmental agency," they may also be exempt from 196-b if their employees are....

Factor 2: "Compensated as if they were employees of a governmental agency"

How can this type of "compensation" happen, if the library itself isn't a "governmental agency?"

In New York, many libraries use their sponsoring municipalities and sponsoring school districts[3] as the "employer" of their employees—even though the library board retains the legal autonomy to hire, discipline, set compensation, promote, or terminate the employees. 

In this type of scenario, the library employees are a) paid directly by the municipality[4], b) are covered by the municipality's insurance[5],  c) get the municipality's benefits, and (most tellingly) are d) eligible for "comp time"^[6] otherwise barred by rules requiring mandatory overtime.  In short, under much of the Labor Law,[7] they are treated as municipal/district employees.^[8]

So does my public library have to give employees sick leave under the new law, or what?

Sadly, there is no "bright-line" rule.  But!  I have created a handy "Library-Municipality Relationship Type" chart to help you figure it out if it's something your library needs to worry about:

And there you have it.  From what I have seen, every public library in New York State handles its coupling/de-coupling in a different way.  Charter documents, bylaws, MOU's, and political/diplomatic relations can influence this just as much (if not more than) that law.  If you know where your library stands, you can not only assess its obligations under the Labor Law, but many other critical compliance obligations, as well.^[10]

The bottom line here is: library employees shouldn't be left in a lurch, especially when it comes to sick leave, family medical leave, short-term disability, workers' compensation, and paid family medical leave—all of which are rooted in the question of "who" their employer is.  This means library trustees should periodically confirm, with certainty and clarity, what policies apply to their workforce.[11]  Regardless of where a library falls on the above chart, this can be accomplished with a confirmed, clear set of policies.

As employment law gets more and more intricate, and as we continue to live with a pandemic, this need for clarity will only get more critical.

I want to say a big "THANK YOU" to  Ben Gocker at Tupper Lake Public Library for submitting this excellent question and bearing with me while I talked through the answer with him.^[12] Like all librarians I get to work with on "Ask the Lawyer," Ben is a critical thinker who brought a lot of research and practical experience to his question.  He also exhibited incredible patience as I tried to explain the mutable legal status of bodies defined by the Education Law, operating under the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law, subject to the General Municipal Law, living with the Civil Service law, and of debatable status under the Labor Law.  Thanks again, Ben!

I hope this approach and chart come in handy for public libraries out there struggling with this question. 

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

The answer for this member is: NO.

Why?

The NYS plastic bag ban does NOT apply to libraries using plastic bags for storage of items pending curbside pick-up, unless the libraries are required to collect sales tax.

So while this member's library can choose to phase out plastic bags[1], since it is not required to collect sales tax ("we're not selling anything"), it is not compelled to do so.

Here is what the new regulations prohibit:

351-2.1 Prohibitions. A person required to collect tax shall not:

(a) distribute any plastic carryout bag to its customers unless the bag is an exempt bag;

...   [emphasis added]

"A person required to collect tax" (as if the term really needs clarification!) is defined as:

(l) ‘Person required to collect tax’ means any vendor of tangible personal property required to collect New York State sales tax pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 1105 of the New York State Tax Law, “Imposition of sales tax.”

The trick is that the application of the law is not based on the taxability of the sale, but rather, the status of the bag distributor as a "person" required to collect tax. 

This is further borne out by commentary from the NY Department of Environmental Conservation, which states[2]:

As of March 1, 2020, all plastic carryout bags (other than an exempt bag) became banned from distribution by anyone required to collect New York State sales tax. For sales that are tax exempt, plastic carry out bags are still not allowed to be distributed by anyone required to collect New York State sales tax (unless it is an exempt bag). [emphasis added]

So, while the vendors at your library's annual craft fair (if you're able to have a craft fair, sigh), who have to collect sales tax, can no longer use plastic bags, a non-sales tax-collecting library's curbside delivery service can.

Extra credit:

At "Ask the Lawyer," we are not used to being the bearers of good news.  So just to be sure—I mean really, really sure—that we could give the above answer, I also checked the " REVISED REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS" found on the NY Department of Environmental Conservation's web page at https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/part351rfafinal.pdf.

The "ANALYSIS" is one of the documents that drills a little more into the law, and how it will impact those it covers.  It states:

In 2019, a new Title 28, “Bag Waste Reduction” was added to Article 27 of the ECL. This law bans the distribution of plastic carryout bags to customers, effective March 1, 2020, by any person required to collect tax. (“Person required to collect tax” means any vendor of tangible personal property subject to the tax imposed by New York State Tax Law section 1105(a), “Imposition of sales tax.”)

So, really: unless your library is collecting sales tax (for sales of food, or sales of items like t-shirts, office supplies, or other retail[3]), these new requirements do not apply.  But if your institution is registered to collect sales tax (for anything): beware, and "ban the bag."

Thank you for a great and timely question.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

Before I answer, let's talk about why a person or business might create an LLC ("limited liability company").

A primary function of an “LLC”^[1] is to do exactly what the member has proposed—to create a separate entity designed to hold the liability associated with a particular venture.

Examples of how an LLC can be used to take on liability (and keep it from flowing to its owner/s) include: ownership of rental properties, operation of restaurants, and yes, collaborative formation of charitable initiatives, like a medical closet operated in affiliation with a library.^[2]

This is because, when set up properly, an LLC allows its "members"^[3] to have an ownership stake in the company, while minimizing the risk of liability associated with the LLC adhering to other parties (like the members).

For this reason, a lot of property owners and participants in risky ventures^[4] use an LLC to contain the liability that could result from the risks of the venture.  This helps with insurance, critical decision-making, and keeping unrelated assets separate from the liabilities of a venture.

Aside from this primary “separation of risk” function, the LLC model also allows creative arrangements for financial operations and tax considerations.  Among many other things that relate to ownership of family businesses, and complex corporate structures, this includes allowing one or multiple 501(c)(3)^[5] not-for-profit charitable entities to form an LLC that will have a similar tax status. 

So the "short answer"^[6] to the member's question is: YES.

That said, I do have a "long answer" composed of several considerations and caveats, which I hope will be helpful.

Consideration 1: Audit.

While the laws governing public libraries^[7] do not forbid--and arguably expressly allow--an education corporation like a public library to own, or partially own, the asset of an LLC^[8], a review of various New York State Comptroller audits^[9] shows that any assets flowing between the two entities will be considered subject to all the requirements that must be followed by the library.

In other words, if the State Comptroller conducts a fiscal audit of the library (as State Comptrollers are randomly wont to do), the Comptroller will not only look at the books of the library, but also the books of the LLC—subjecting them to the same scrutiny as the library. 

So, to the extent money and resources flow from the library to the LLC, the same constraints on procurement, investment, and other use of assets will be imposed on the LLC.  This could bar or limit the activities of the LLC, so should be a primary consideration when it is formed.

Consideration 2: Operations

By "operations," I mean: who is helping the LLC get the work done?

In the scenario submitted by the member, it is the library who will "be responsible for cataloging the items, tracking their circulation, and applying for grants to help with funding."  Meanwhile "local visiting nurses have volunteered to handle the distribution of equipment."  And finally, as described by the member, the storage/pick-up (the "Closet") will be off-site (not on library property).

This means that the LLC would rent/borrow the space for the Closet, volunteer nurses would work there helping to distribute equipment, and the library would use its personnel to track the lending and equipment.

And although the member doesn't specify, let's say the library doesn't use its own circulation system for this, but instead, buys or builds a custom system—maybe even something as simple as an Excel spreadsheet.^[10]

So the library would supply the "time and talent" of its people on an ongoing basis to the LLC, perhaps tracking it as an in-kind support to the charitable venture,^[11] and also separately purchase assets that would be solely owned and used by the LLC.

This "time and talent," is where "risk and liability" for the library—even with an LLC housing the operations—truly enter the picture.  Even with a separate entity designed to take the hit, when an entity supplies its own people to staff a venture, there is always some risk that the direct involvement of a third party can lead to an assertion of liability (when people sue, they often look for not only deep, but multiple pockets).

How do you solve that?  It takes two things:

Consideration 3: The Operating Agreement

By law, every LLC must have an "Operating Agreement" that specifies how the "members" run the company.  For small, simple LLC's, an "OA" can be a fairly short document.  For complex ventures with detailed financial goals and complex management structures, an OA can be hundreds of pages.

In the case of a "Medical Loan Closet" LLC meeting the criteria in the member's scenario, the operating agreement would have to address, head-on:

• The precise responsibilities of each member^[12]; and
• The in-kind services being supplied by each member; and
• The precise terms under which individuals would contribute their services, including volunteers; and
• The precise way assets of the LLC are purchased, loaned, and de-accessioned (this is the part the Comptroller would look at); and
• How the premises of the Closet is managed and insured; and
• Most critically, the way the LLC would hold harmless and indemnify the participating parties for any assertion of liability against them based on LLC operations.

Which brings us back to...

Consideration 4:  Insurance

At the end of the day, this question is about two things: 1) how to do a good thing for a community; and 2) how to make sure the organizations doing that "good thing" properly manage the risks of doing it.

While much of this can be addressed via good planning, rigorous equipment maintenance,^[13] and proper paperwork, as can be seen in "Consideration 3,” and as the member clearly knows, a venture that will be so closely connected to people's physical health must have some form of insurance. The coverage should extend to every person with either a fiduciary, employment, agency, or volunteer relationship with the Closet.

While precise coverage amounts should be determined by the participating parties, my instinct is that there should be at least $1 million of coverage per incident, with no less than $3 million/year aggregate.^[14]  But it will depend on many factors.

So, what to do?

Many times, there is a very solid reason to start an LLC.  If the Closet described by the member was going to own real property, have its own employees, apply for grants, and in general, take care of most of its operations in-house, with the support—but not the direct service—of the members, I'd say that was the right solution for this scenario.

However, if the Closet is to be a collaborative effort that will rely on the direct services and assets of the member organization/s (in this case, services by library employees, on library time), in my experience^[15], a tightly structured plan that properly establishes the responsibilities of the collaborating parties—and ensures there is proper insurance coverage for all involved—might be the most practical way to move forward. 

This will also position the library to do the right type and amount of "volunteer vetting" and to properly confirm the conditions of (and insurance coverage for) the volunteers.

So, on a practical level, what am I saying?  A library can spend thousands to set up a charitable LLC to run a Medical Loan Closet^[16], and then about a thousand or so a year to ensure the proper administration of that LLC--or it can develop the Closet as a program of the library (either stand-alone, or in collaboration with others) and spend the money on additional risk management and insurance. 

After all, we're not talking small engine repair, here.  Lending things—even if it is health-related equipment—is part of any library's core mission.

At the end of the day, many factors will play into the decision to use 1) an LLC, 2) a collaboration agreement^[17], or 3) to simply operate the Closet as a new program of the library (with some volunteer agreements for the nurses). 

To get to the part where the library can make the decision, I advise developing an "Operational Plan"^[18] for the program, and getting quotes from several insurance carriers as to what the coverage would costs for your library and/or for a new entity to conduct the activities in the Operational Plan.

Since there will be a lot of detail to review, a small ad hoc committee^[19] consisting of a board member or two, the library director, any other person whose input will be helpful, and the library's attorney, can then review this information, and come up with a solution to pitch to the board. 

And when that pitch is made, everyone should be confident that there is no "wrong" way to develop a new, life-saving lending initiative—so long as the way selected clearly defines everyone's responsibilities, establishes that clarity in writing, assures legal and fiscal compliance, and ensures everyone helping out is covered by insurance.  With the right attention to detail, this could be an LLC—or another solution.

I wish this venture luck and stout hearts for getting it over the finish line; it sounds like a great asset to any community!

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

I remember getting my first library card at the Utica Public Library with my Dad, circa 1985.  It was a right of passage: something "official" before I could drive, or work, or vote; a stepping-stone to adult life.

Of course, back then, we didn't have the Child Online Privacy Protection Act, the SHIELD Act, or the GDPR.  We did have CPLR 4509[1], but if that was part of the application, I probably assumed it was what the library would use to revive me if I had a heart attack in the stacks.

But enough of Memory Lane: this question is rooted in 2020, a time of pandemic, of online ecosystems, and of growing awareness about personal privacy and data security.  During this time, a library putting in place direct access to services for children in the ways listed by the member is a critical service, and as the member points out, introduces a lot of legal factors to think about.

To answer the member's questions, let's dive into them.

Contracts and Kids

Since the relationship of a library to a patron is (among other things) contractual, and in New York a person (generally) cannot be held to a contract until they are 18[2], any terms a library wants to be able to enforce on a minor must require legal consent of a parent or guardian...and in some cases, the contract really is just with the parent or guardian (who I will call "P/G" for the sake of efficiency going forward).

This, by the way, doesn't mean a library can't let minors have a card and borrow books (or have online access, or be in the library) without the signature of a parent or guardian—it just means if you want to enforce any contractual terms against those minors (like the requirement to return borrowed books), it's best to have a P/G's consent along for the ride.

Contracts and the Internet

Most contracts—including those signed by P/Gs binding minors—can be entered into electronically,[3] and a contract signified by a library card is no exception.  So yes, a patron, including a child, can get a library card or access to services through an electronic signature. 

(Just in case you want the nation-wide definition, an "electronic signature" is "an electronic sound,[4] symbol, or process, attached to or logically associated with a contract or other record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record."[5])

What about COPPA?

When a website specifically provides services to children, we often have to consider the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, or "COPPA."  But not today, since COPPA expressly states that the law applies to "commercial" websites and online services and generally not to nonprofit entities like a library.[6]

Although nonprofit entities are generally not subject to COPPA, the FTC "encourages[7] such entities to post privacy policies online and to provide COPPA’s protections to their child visitors."  Since libraries are sticklers for privacy, this makes sense, but if your library does this when setting up online resources for minors, don't call it "compliance with COPPA," call it "doing it the right thing because we want to."[8]

Should we require a parent?

COPPA, by the way, is one of the laws that uses the age of thirteen as the cut-off age for children being able to sign up for things (commercial or otherwise) on their own.  In my experience, 13 is also the age when insurance carriers decide children transition from "vulnerable" to simply "minors."  For this reason, many content providers and services (including libraries) bar access without a parent to those under 13.

All of which is to say: while there might not be a legal requirement to involve a P/G, in general, I'd say this is a good practice.  Good—but not required.  Remember, to legally enforce any conditions[9] (collect fines), you need a P/G's signature, but if you just want to let a kid borrow a book without consequences enforceable in court, you don't.

Let's see some ID?

Okay: you're set with electronic signatures.  You know you need to get P/G into the mix for patrons under 18.  You're "Doing The Right Thing Because You Want To" when it comes to soliciting information from minors under 13.  Do you need to see identification to make things official?

That depends.

If the privileges the library card or access grants come with conditions you will need to enforce in a court of law (fines, damages), it is ALWAYS better to get some form of identification or proof of address.  I say this, because when lawyers sue, proper ID and proof of address is how they know they are suing the right person.

Similarly, if there is an age or residency requirement, or a financial element (for instance, loading money onto an account), or if a person is to have access to another's account, you might need to require ID. 

Because the need for it will vary, when to require ID is a good question for your local attorney.  From my perspective, if a person is allowed to take out more than $10,000.00 worth of library assets at a time, or a library wants to be able to collect fines, I'd want to know how to enforce a return of those items.  Similarly, if patrons are allowed to access services from third-party vendors through their library card (software programs, audio books, anything governed by a third-party license), and there are consequences for a violation, it is good to have solid information about who your patron really is.

The problem is, if you are going to require ID, you must have a solid policies and procedures that address:

• Requiring ID in a manner that does not disproportionately impact those who live in poverty, or other categories of people[10]
• Requesting ID
• Evaluating ID
• Securely retaining and routinely destroying hard copies of ID
• Securely retaining and routinely purging electronic copies of ID
• Have a plan for data breach impacting retained ID

Basically: the reason a library would require ID—aside from verifying that a person lives in the relevant area of service, or is who they say they are—is to collect damages or to legally enforce conditions the patron has agreed to as a condition of a card.  Since that is an unpleasant business, its best to avoid it whenever you can...but when it's important, it's important to do it right.

I enjoyed writing this answer, because as part of it, I got to poke around and see how different libraries are solving this issue.  I saw some great stuff, including a temporary e-access system that let the technology do all the work (requesting verification of age via click-thru, using location services to confirm location in NY, imposing conditions on digital content via function without the need for legal enforcement mechanisms).

It is good to see when the law inspires, rather than quashes, creativity and information access.  I hope your library and library system finds this helpful as you imagine new ways to connect people to vital services!

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

NOTE: As a primer to this answer, which mostly consists of the requested template, I suggest reviewing the materials in the ever-excellent "NYLA Handbook for Library Trustees,"^[1] particularly the guidance and links on page 85.

"Ask the Lawyer" has addressed the issue of "Friends" relationships before.^[2] This question presents a chance to address some common areas of concern pro-actively.

Of course, since an agreement is only as good as the lines of communication between the parties who are in it, aside from reviewing this template in advance of discussing it with your Friends, get ready to spend some time on this.  A good agreement is the product of a lot of discussion, back-and forth, and work for clarity—not the other way around.  And if you can, invite your lawyer to the table.

That said, a simple template can be a handy way to frame the discussion.  So with that, here it is:

TEMPLATE Cooperation Agreement

_____________ Library

and the

Friends of the ______________ Library

This agreement (the "Agreement") between the _________________ Library (the "Library") and the Friends of the  _____________ Library, Inc. (the "Friends") is intended to further the mission of the Library and the mission of the Friends by clarifying the mission-driven collaboration, shared commitments, and terms for collaboration between the two institutions ("Collaboration").

Mission-driven Collaboration

In all matters involving the Collaboration, the Library and the Friends shall be guided by their missions.

The mission of the Library is:

INSERT

The mission of the Friends is:

INSERT

In furtherance of their missions, the Parties set forth the below "Shared Commitments."

Shared Commitments of the Library and the Friends

Shared Commitment to Ethics

In all matters involving the Collaboration, the Library and the Friends shall be guided by the ethics of their institutions, including the American Library Code of Ethics, the Library Board's Code of Ethics, the oaths of office of the Library Board Members, and the Friends Board's Code of Ethics, and each parties' Conflict of Interest policy.

Shared Commitment to Legal Compliance and Transparency

As not-for-profit institutions governed by a variety of federal and state laws and regulations, the Parties operate under an array of legal obligations, and hereby commit to model compliance and all appropriate transparency in their stewardship of Library and Friend's resources.

Shared Commitment to the Success of the Library

The Parties agree that the very purpose of the creation of the Friends is the continued viability and growth of the Library, and all their Collaboration shall be to that end.

In furtherance of their shared commitments, the Parties set forth the below "Collaboration Terms."

Collaboration Terms

Use of Name

In consideration of the support enabled by this Agreement, the _________________ Library consents to the use of the Library's name in the name of the Friends.

Distinguishing the Entities

Although the Friends are allowed, by this Agreement, to incorporate the name of the Library into their name, each party agrees to exert extreme care to consistently distinguish one entity from the other, and to use their respective EIN's, proper corporate names, when relevant proper Charities Bureau number and corporate identification number, at all times to distinguish one from the other.   

This obligation shall be especially critical during any marketing, contracting, fund-raising, event-planning, and when either party communicates with the public or any oversight authority.

Inter-organizational Familiarity

To ensure mutual awareness of each other, the boards shall maintain a shared record of the current information for both parties, as it is available:

• Charter (Library); Certificate of Incorporation (Friends)
• Bylaws
• Fiscal policies
• Conflict of Interest policy
• Current list of Board members and officers
• Plan of Service (Library); Strategic Plan (Friends)
• Social networking addresses
• Meeting Schedule
• Event Schedule

Board Participation

By no later than DATE, the Library and the Friends shall create and maintain a "Library-Friends Collaboration Committee," with at least three board members from each organization, for the coordination of any aspect of the Collaboration, and shall invite no less than three Library board members to serve on the committee in a voting capacity. The committee itself may also appoint three additional members, by majority vote, but the total membership shall not exceed nine. 

The Library-Friends Collaboration Committee shall have no authority to bind either the Friends or the Library.

Committee members shall serve one-year, renewable terms, which run from January to December (the Friend’s fiscal year).  The Committee shall be co-chaired by one appointee from each board, as named by the President of that board.

The stated purpose and authority of the committee shall be "To maintain a strong and routine collaboration between the Library and the Friends, to facilitate planning in furtherance of the mission of the Friends, and to ensure clarity in matters of fund-raising, fiscal goals, and specific donations."

The Library-Friends Collaboration Committee shall meet no less than quarterly, in furtherance of the commitments of this Agreement.

Annual Contribution Ratio

The Friends shall aspire to direct no less than INSERT% of their total annual income to the Library.  Any departure from this percentage shall be subject to a vote by both parties, based on the planned need to temporarily direct resources in another way, for the benefit of the library (for example, the Friends contracting with registered fund-raising counsel for a capital campaign).

Annual Planning Sheet

As part of the operations of "Library-Friends Collaboration Committee" the committee shall create for each fiscal year an "Annual Planning Sheet."  This sheet will list the special asks the library has (including but not limited to funding for acquisitions, equipment, programming, board discretionary funds, or a capital campaign), and will be used by the Committee and the Friends to determine fund-raising objectives for the year, and to pre-identify any departure from the annual contribution ratio.

Donations

The Friends will encourage donors to make "unrestricted" donations (donations without conditions).

If a restricted donation is accepted (for instance, a donation that requires a naming right, or a certain work of art be placed in the Library) the conditions of the donations must first be reviewed for consistency with the Library's controlling documents and strategic plan, and then accepted via a majority vote by the Library's board.

It is expected that at all times the Friends shall maintain appropriate records of donations and donor-restricted donations and shall issue, in a timely manner, letters of acknowledgement in furtherance of any tax credit the donor may qualify for.

Grants

The Friends may apply for grants from government and private entities for the benefit of the Library, but prior to applying for the grant, the conditions of the grant must first be reviewed for consistency with the Library's controlling documents and strategic plan, and then accepted via a majority vote by the Library's board.  This is to ensure that the time and resources used to apply for the grant are not wasted.

If the Friends apply for grants from government and private entities for the benefit of the Friends (for instance, to purchase donor management software, or to buy equipment the Friends will use for events), the Library does not need to be consulted.  However, the Friends and the Library will, through the Collaboration Committee, maintain awareness of grant applications, to ensure there are no redundant requests.

Annual Accounting

In MONTH of each year, the Treasurer of the Library, and the Treasurer of the Friends, shall meet to exchange financial reports, and to independently and/or jointly develop any observations or advice they as Treasurers may have for the Committee or their respective boards.

No Library Resources for Fund-Raising

It is understood between the Library and the Friends that no library employees shall staff a Friends' fund-raising event, and no Library resources whatsoever shall be used in furtherance of such event.^[3]

Appropriate Boundaries

To avoid any concerns regarding authority and responsibility, no members of the Friends Board shall volunteer at the Library.

Dispute Resolution

To avoid any concerns to the detriment of the Friends or the Library, in the event either party believes the other has violated its mission, formation documents, charitable purpose, applicable laws and regulations, or this Agreement, the concerned party shall notify the other in writing.

If the dispute is not resolved within ten days, the parties shall agree to retain a New York Bar Association-listed mediator to resolve the dispute.  To select the mediator, the Library shall supply a list of 5 qualified candidates, and the Friends shall select the mediator from the list.  As part of their service as a neutral party, the Mediator shall certify that they may serve without a conflict of interest.

If one full-day session of mediation does not resolve the dispute, the concerned party may seek such other relief as appropriate.

Bi-annual Agreement Review and Amendment

This agreement shall continue for so long as the Friends continue activities for the benefit of the ______________ Library.

Every two years, the officers of the Friends and the Library, shall meet to review this Agreement, or refine their practices that are governed by it, as needed.

This Agreement may be amended through a two-thirds vote by both boards within the same two-month period.

Effective Date and Term

The Agreement is effective upon the date of incorporation of the Friends, and shall continue for so long as both parties are in existence.

With this understanding, on ________, the Board of the ___________________ Library passed a resolution to enter this Agreement effective as of _________________, and the Board of the Friends of the  _____________ Library, Inc. passed a resolution to enter this Agreement effective as of ____________, as signified by the signatures below.

[insert signatures, etc.]

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

Yes, I can!  But first, a few caveats:

• Any template contract is just a starting point.  Use a lawyer to generate a version of this document customized to your library. 

• For any Organization that wants to use your library for a high-risk event (sports, concert with stage or sound equipment, large event open to the public, routine presence of children), whenever possible, additional review for insurance concerns and premises liability is wise.
• When filling this out, always make sure the nature of the Organization is confirmed (individual, DBA, LLC, NFP, corporation, etc.), and you have confirmed they exist as stated. 
• If the form shows that an activity requiring a professional license is going to happen (haircuts, massage, tax prep, legal clinic) obtain a copy of the insurance coverage for the professional activity and make sure it names your Library.
• No political events should occur unless it is confirmed the arrangements conform to IRS and NYS Charities guidance.
• A copy of the signed contract should be kept for 7 years (because the statute of limitations to sue on a contract is 6 years). 

ABC Library

FACILITY USE CONTRACT

This contract for facility use is between the ABC Library (the "Library") and INSERT NAME ("Organization") an [insert type organization/individual] ("Organization") with an address of [INSERT], for temporary use of [INSERT ROOM# or Description] in the Library (the "Space").

Details of Temporary Use

Library Mission and Terms of Use

The ABC Library's mission is [INSERT].

As part of its mission, the Library requires that all people on Library property abide by all the Library's policies.  In addition, while using the Space, Organization and any person at the Space in affiliation with Organization must at all times follow the below rules, and any reasonable request of any Library representative.

Rules include:

No harassing, abusive, or demeaning activity directed at any person or the Space.

No contact that violates any applicable law or regulation.

In the event of an emergency at the Library, Organization shall abide not only by the reasonable request of any Library representative, but also any first responder assisting with the emergency.

In the event of any injury to any person, or incident of property damage while the Space is in use, Organization will immediately notify the Library Contact listed in the chart above immediately.  In the event of a crime or medical emergency, call 911.

Aside from those attending the event(s) in the Space sponsored by Organization, no filming or taking pictures of any individual in the library (visitor or employee) is allowed, without their express permission.

After use, the Space will be restored to the condition it was in prior to Organization's use, by the Organization, unless otherwise specifically confirmed with the Library Contact.

Organization will not promote the event using the Library/Space as the location until this contract is fully signed and (if applicable) Organization has paid the applicable Rental Fee.

Drafting note: if the Library does not own the building, add any other rules based on requirements in the lease.

Violation of any rules may result in the termination of this Contract with no refund, and denial of future use.

Emergency Cancellation

This Contract guarantees that Library will reserve the Space for Organization as set forth in the "Details" section, above. However, in the event the Library or a related entity experiences an emergency which, in the sole determination of the Library, requires the cancellation of the use (including but not limited to condition at the facility, weather emergency, or event requiring Library's emergency use of the space), Library shall notify Organization as soon as possible, and work with Organization to refund the fee or determine a new date, whichever is preferable.

Indemnification
To the greatest extent allowed by law, Organization hereby agrees to indemnify and defend and hold harmless the Library, its Board of Trustees, employees, agents, and volunteers, from any and all causes of action, complaints, violations, and penalties, and shall pay the cost of defending same, as well as any related fines, penalties, and fees, including reasonable attorneys' fees, related to Organization's use of the Space, including conduct by any third party or contractor present at the Space as part of the Event/s.

Insurance
Organization shall provide insurance meeting the requirements shown in exhibit "A."

Drafting Note/Instruction: the person at the Library organizing the contract will either select the default insurance requirement, which is the conventional insurance demand, or it shall be determined that no insurance is required.  For organizations conducting routine meetings, and especially if children are served by the Organization, the library's lawyer, and/or your insurance carrier will almost always advise insurance be required. 

Person signing for Organization
The person signing on the line below on behalf of organization is at least 18 years of age and has the power to sign for the Organization.
 

Venue for Dispute
This contract and any related action shall be governed according to the laws of the state of New York, and Venue for any dispute shall be INSERT county, New York.

Accepted on behalf of the Library:___________________     on:___________

                              Print name:__________________

Accepted on behalf of the Organization:___________________          on:___________

                              Print name:________________________
 

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

Like many of you, I have had to tackle a lot of previously unaddressed conundrums since March of 2020.  Especially when it involved developing a Safety Plan, this "tackling" has required research, patience, a good sense of humor, and lots of flexibility.[1]

The issue of how to handle 1) newfound concerns regarding the sanitary conditions of workplace toilets; and 2) newfound concerns about sanitary conditions of toilets in public spaces, is one of the most high-stakes and complex.  It can cause a lot of anxiety.

When a matter makes me anxious, I resort to either exercise, or exacting linguistic specificity.  Since you don't come to "Ask the Lawyer" for workout tips[2], I will address this anxiety-provoking issue with exacting linguistic specificity, starting with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)'s definitions of the different terminology used for bathrooms[3]:

Personal service room, means a room used for activities not directly connected with the production or service function performed by the establishment. Such activities include, but are not limited to, first-aid, medical services, dressing, showering, toilet use, washing, and eating.

Toilet facility, means a fixture maintained within a toilet room for the purpose of defecation or urination, or both.

Toilet room, means a room maintained within or on the premises of any place of employment, containing toilet facilities for use by employees.

Urinal means a toilet facility maintained within a toilet room for the sole purpose of urination.

Water closet means a toilet facility maintained within a toilet room for the purpose of both defecation and urination and which is flushed with water.
 

Now, before we go further: a few words about OSHA.  Based on size, location, type, and a dozen other factors, there is no one-size-fits-all for OSHA compliance. But public employers (like many libraries) in NY are required to follow OSHA's standards for employee toilets[4], and non-public employers, whose bathroom-supplying obligations will change by site and size of the organization, can refer to those standards for inspiration.[5] And OSHA (along with the Center for Disease Control, or "CDC") is currently a New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) go-to for COVID-related sanitization information. 

So with those three resources in mind (NYSDOH, CDC, and OSHA), let's address the member's questions:

QUESTION 1: Should we lock the restrooms to the public entirely?

The first question to address in this is not "should" the library lock the restrooms to the public entirely, but can it?

Any library considered a place of "public assembly,"[6] by state regulation, must have a bathroom open to the public.[7]  However, the definition of a "place of public assembly" expressly excludes public association and free libraries, so yes, and while a municipal library will have a few more hoops to jump through, an association library can decide to limit access by the public.

If your library isn't required to have a "toilet facility" accessible by the public[8], and the capacity of your library means the toilet facility can't be routinely cleaned per the NYSDOH's recommendations, it is worth considering reducing or shutting access down.[9]

QUESTION 2: Should we lock the restrooms and require the public to ask for a key?

If this would help monitor use so the bathroom can be cleaned on an as-needed basis per NYSDOH/CDC/OSHA recommendations, yes, that is a viable option, and can be included as part of a Safety Plan. 

Should we return to our pre-pandemic practice of completely open restrooms cleaned once a day?

OSHA states: "Employers operating workplaces during the COVID-19 pandemic should continue routine cleaning and other housekeeping practices in any facilities that remain open to workers or others. Employers who need to clean and disinfect environments potentially contaminated with SARS-CoV-2 should use EPA-registered disinfectants with label claims to be effective against SARS-CoV-2."

Meanwhile, the Phase II Safety Plan template from New York State requires any library to: "Conduct regular cleaning and disinfection at least after every shift, daily, or more frequently as needed, and frequent cleaning and disinfection of shared objects (e.g. tools, machinery) and surfaces, as well as high transit areas, such as restrooms and common areas, must be completed."

So, although there is no mathematically determined heightened standard, these requirements show that routine disinfection should be based on frequency of use, and at a bare minimum, bathrooms should be disinfected at least "once per shift," and there should be a log to register each cleaning (just as the member described they are already doing).

QUESTION 3: Should we require non-janitorial staff to clean the restrooms during open hours, and, if yes, how often, and do they require training on the products and methods required to clean a public restroom during a pandemic--and what kind of PPE does that require?

This is a tricky question.  "Requiring" non-janitorial staff to do a task not in their job description risks concerns with morale, operational consistency, and if there is a contract involved, compliance (this will vary from library to library, of course).  And if the cleaning supplies trip a person's health conditions, there might also be concerns with ADA. 

Because of this, like all aspects of the Safety Plan, the requirement to sanitize surfaces in the bathroom(s) must be planned carefully. 

That should start with an analysis of the toilet facility, just as the member asking this question has done.  Does it have one toilet or many?  Does it have touchless sinks or sinks with handles?  Is the tile in good condition, or is the grout failing?  In short, what does it take to sanitize your library's unique space effectively?

One you've done the analysis, select the right products from the EPA's list of products known to effectively combat COVID-19, and based on the instructions on the product, select the method of disinfection that meets the needs of your operation, including the frequency.  And once you have established the method and the frequency, the requirements for employee PPE and training are here: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/disinfecting-building-facility.html and they include a link to a pdf poster about safe disinfection of the work site: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-04/documents/disinfectants-onepager.pdf.

And finally, the last part of the member's submission: Any guidance on how to handle ostensibly public restrooms in an ostensibly public building is appreciated.

This is a great summarizing statement, because as it hints, and as this answer reviews, not all "public" restrooms are actually required to be open to the public at all.  Once you have confirmed the requirements for your particular library, it's time to assess what you can do—and what your mission demands that you do.  If that means reducing toilet facility access to minimum required levels, so employee energy and your library's budget can focus on service to the public, make it so.  If that means re-allocating part of the budget to hire a contractor specifically to clean the bathrooms every four hours since your library knows public access is either required or essential, and your library isn't situated to add that to employees' job descriptions, do that.  And if that means employees are expected to take on new duties to effect routine sanitization, develop a well-thought-out rollout plan[10] before implementing that as an express job duty.[11]

But whatever you do with the restrooms, the key is to consistently document that your library is following the NYDSOH, CDC, and OSHA guidelines suited to its unique site, location, and identity.

Thank you for a great question and a great example of the care libraries are taking to stay open and safe for the public.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

This is a heart-breaking question, and I am sure it has been a hard process to get to this phase in your operations and planning.

In the state of New York, it can be a violation of both state and federal law to deny a person an employment opportunity on the basis of age or disability.  However, when a person cannot perform their essential duties due to a health concern, and no reasonable accommodation can help them do so, that person may have to leave the position.

Which brings us to the member's question: "So how can we effectively accommodate public librarians who are asking to *not* work with the public?"
There is a lot of wiggle room in this type of question, because the answer will change from library to library, but that also makes it hard to answer generically. 

Since I can't give an answer, I can do the next best thing: an array of questions to help members assess their own library's response to this type of disability accommodation[1] request:

I know no chart can take the place of a solid plan that considers the needs and resources of your library, the well-being and privacy of your employees, but hopefully this chart can help you develop one. Together with the more general guidance in an earlier answer, these are the fundamental steps to consider.

Thank you for being willing to pose a difficult question.  I wish your library well at this difficult time.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

OPENING NOTE: Before I answer this question, I must stress: while some of it is identical, the quoted language in the question does not exactly track the language in the “2018 Handbook for Library Trustees in New York State,” nor the “United for Libraries Public Library Trustee Ethics Statement.”  This reply addresses the language as quoted in the question and does not address the precise language of the Handbook or the Ethics Statement.

Here are the words of the First Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

I have been thinking a lot about these words, lately.  Business restrictions, social distancing, mask-wearing, protesting…2020 has evoked them, again and again.^[1]

For this question, these strong, simple words are contrasted against the laws, regulations, and documents setting the terms of service of a public library board member. 

Let’s review those terms of service:

• In the State of New York, public and private libraries are chartered by the NY State Education Department, as authorized by Education Law Section 255.
• Whatever “type”^[2] a Regents-chartered library is, it is always considered an “education corporation,”^[3] to be governed, in part, by the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law.^[4]
• Although they are “education corporations,” public libraries bear some hallmarks of government entities: trustees must take oaths of office, most employees are part of the Civil Service, and there are significant, government-aligned requirements for procurement, audit, and accounting.
• And of course, public libraries are subject to the Freedom of Information Law, the Open Meetings Law, the laws of their host municipalities, and the requirements of their own charters, bylaws, and policies.

This elaborate grid of law, regulation, and governance creates not only a public library--it creates the conditions for service by the public library trustee. 

Overarching all of this is the First Amendment, with its shifting assurances of unfettered freedom of speech and association. These shifting assurances include (but are not limited to): the right to say something (“free speech”), the right to not say something (no “compelled speech”), the freedom to attend meetings and gatherings (“association”), and the right to protest and advocate for your point of view (to “peaceably petition the government for redress of grievances”).

I say “shifting assurances,” because as is widely known, the tests for violations of the First Amendment depend on the context of the speech.^[5]  Depending on the government interest to be advanced, or the nature of the speech impacted, the Supreme Court has created various tests to assess the Constitutionality of governmental actions impacting expression.^[6]  One of those “contexts” is the voluntary acceptance of public library trustee service, which means agreeing to serve in alignment with certain laws. 

Here are just a few examples of how, even though every person on a public library board has First Amendment rights, speech and association of a trustee may be “limited” by law:

• Trustees must take an Oath of Office,^[7] which is arguably “compelled speech” required by the Education Law and the Public Officers Law;
• Trustees must agree to follow the library’s “Conflict of Interest” policy, which is arguably “compelled speech” required by both the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law and the mandated Oath of Office;
• Trustees must meet at least quarterly and if individual members do not attend, they may be removed, which is arguably “compelled association” required by the Education Law;
• Trustees must not divulge communications designated by statute as confidential (whether or not they were discussed at executive session)^[8] which is arguably “restricted speech” but is a condition confirmed in a number of judicial and Education Commissioner decisions;
• Board members must abide by a library board’s code of ethics or risk being removed for misconduct.

Each of these examples is an instance where library trustees must curb or engage in behavior due to their special status as a public library trustee.  Each is a well-established condition, limiting or prescribing actions and expression, voluntarily undertaken as part of a valuable public service.

So, it is clear that library trustees must accept some conditions impacting their First Amendment rights, as a condition of board service.  But what about the language cited by the member’s question?

Most of the language in the question, as presented, does not lend itself to any concerns about the First Amendment; in fact, most of it does just the opposite.  By requiring a board member who is expressing a personal opinion to clarify that they do not speak for the full board or the institution, the language allows a trustee to express their personal position without jeopardizing their duty as a fiduciary who must act solely in the best interests of the institution.  Further, citing “the best interests of the library” and “the cooperative nature of the Board” emphasizes how a board must collaborate in good faith to achieve board decisions based solely in the trustees’ role as fiduciaries, which is consistent with both the Not-for-Profit Corporation law, and the cases construing duties of boards. 

In short, most of the language allows a trustee to perform their duties while exercising their First Amendment rights.

All that said, I have First Amendment concerns about the following phrases:

“…supporting the formal position of the Board even if they disagree.”

“…if a trustee is actively working against the interest of the library or Board decisions …”

What are my concerns with these phrases?

I have concerns because the meaning of these phrases, while evocative of a trustee’s “duty of loyalty”^[9] to the library they serve, is ambiguous.   Ambiguity—by which I mean uncertainty about what exactly is being required--does not work well when free speech is implicated; and the uncertainty caused by a term being vague or overbroad creates risk. 

Here is how that risk plays out:

The following are some examples ^[10] of behavior that could be characterized as a trustee “actively working against the interest of the library or Board decisions…” that would violate the trustee’s duty of loyalty, and thus if punished with removal or censure, would NOT create First Amendment concerns:

• A trustee knows it is in the best interest of the library to fix the roof in 2020, but publicly advocates waiting until a roofer they personally like (a neighbor or a drinking buddy) is free to perform the work in 2021;
• A trustee knows that Candidate #1 has the best qualifications for the job, and therefore hiring Candidate #1 is in the best interest of the library, but thinks Candidate #2 will make their friends happier, so publicly endorses and votes for #2;
• After appropriate due diligence and discussion with legal counsel during executive session, the board votes to buy the lot next door and to roll out news of the decision in a particular way.  A trustee, by virtue of information learned during the process, knows that the decision complies with all applicable laws and regulations, but still organizes a petition asserting the purchase is “illegal.”

Any of these, if proved, could be grounds for removing a trustee for “misconduct” and removal with no First Amendment defense to fight the removal. 

HOWEVER, as I said, the ambiguity of the quoted phrases, and some of their possible implications, concerns me.  To flip my examples around, here are some examples of behavior that could be characterized as a “trustee is actively working against the interest of the library or Board decisions…” that would NOT violate the duty of loyalty, and if punished with removal or censure, COULD create concerns under the First Amendment:

• A trustee knows it is in the best interest of the library to fix the roof in 2020, but the only roofer to bid on the contract as authorized by the board has an established track record of defective work which is not being considered in the procurement process. In the days before the scheduled vote on the contract, the trustee publicly—and clearly only speaking for themselves—advocates a new procurement process and project timing that will attract roofers with a better record of performance;
• A trustee sees that the new director, while excellent in many ways, does not have experience organizing a move to a new building, so despite a previous decision by the board to not hire a consultant to assist with the move, re-introduces a resolution to hire a consultant, and publicly (but respectfully) shares their reasons for the procurement;
• A trustee, by virtue of information learned at executive session, has a genuine concern that a planned land purchase will not comply with all applicable laws and regulations, and reaches out to a private attorney to confidentially share their concerns.  Once those concerns are confirmed, the trustee shares the concerns in another executive session.  The board ignores the concerns, so the trustee—taking care to state that they are speaking personally and not for the board--THEN (without divulging attorney-client privileged information from the sessions) writes to the state Comptroller and the Attorney General for guidance, and writes a letter to the town paper stating simply that they hope to have time to gather further information.

If this seems complicated: it is.^[11]  This is why there is a 132-page Handbook for library trustees, why there is currently a state-wide discussion about mandated training for library trustees, and why libraries have lawyers. 

Serving as a public library trustee is truly a role like no other.  To support the people in that role, if I were to word-smith the phrasing I have expressed concerns with, it would read (shown here with tracked changes):

"Trustees must distinguish clearly in their actions and statements between their personal philosophies and attitudes of those of the library, acknowledging and supporting as legitimate the formal actions position of the Board even if they disagree."

"When any trustee acts in a manner that is not in the best interests of the library or is inconsistent with thein a cooperative nature of the Board, the Board Chair shall discuss the issue with the trustee in a direct and constructive manner. Specifically, if a trustee is negligent in attending meetings to an extent that affects the operation of the Board, if a trustee is  engaging in misconduct or neglect of dutyactively working against the interest of the library or Board decisions, if a trustee acts or speaks on behalf of the Board on any matter without prior approval of the Board, or if a trustee or his/her family benefits personally from any library matters, that trustee may be asked to resign from the Board by majority vote of the trustees. The trustee will be asked to resign from the Board by letter from the Board Chair, and the trustee will be asked to send a letter of resignation to the Board Chair."

I suggest adding the words “misconduct” and “neglect of duty” because they come straight from Education Law 226(8), and as such, they are less prone to mis-interpretation.  On the flip side, I suggest removing the phrase, “actively working against,” because that phrase has no basis in law, regulation, or case law;^[12] therefore, it risks mis-interpretation.  Since First Amendment decisions often turn on a phrase’s precise meaning (through definition or usage), these are more reliable choices.

To put this plainly: I am concerned that the language, as presented by the member’s question, creates the possibility of a public library chair thinking it is appropriate to tell a public library trustee: “The majority of the board voted to fix the roof this year, it’s a done deal, and now you have to keep quiet about it, or be removed from the board.”  This might not only violate the First Amendment, but could result in a course of action where the trustees are not acting in the best interests of the library.  That is a result to avoid.

At the same time, boards MUST feel empowered to remove members who are disruptive, who refuse to engage in the processes of deliberation and voting, who are disrespectful if they don’t get their own way, who improperly disclose confidential information, who have inappropriate relations with patrons or staff, or who violate board policy...so language emphasizing trustees’ responsibilities should be retained, and should be revisited often. 

Clarity about trustee rights and obligations, board training, and procedures creating a high-functioning board are always in the best interests of a library.

Thank you for a great question.  I hope this answer is helpful. 

CLOSING NOTE: At this closing section of the answer, I would like to re-iterate what was established in the first footnote: Although similar, the quoted language in the question does not exactly track the language in the “2018 Handbook for Library Trustees in New York State” nor the “United for Libraries Public Library Trustee Ethics Statement”.  This reply addresses the language as quoted in the question and does not address the precise language in the Handbook nor the Ethics Statement.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

I had initially considered bundling this question with another submission about temporary actions or policies during COVID-19.  After all, both questions relate to policy, and a big goal of “Ask the Lawyer” is to provide legal information efficiently.

But after drafting that answer, and considering this question further, I did away with that notion.  The member has isolated an incredibly critical concern about employee/employer safety and authority.  It is a question that demands—and deserves—its own consideration.

But before we dive into the legalities, let's consider the practical implications of the member’s question.  Why would an employer want to “exclude vulnerable employees” from the work site? On the flip side, why would an employer want to set policies “requiring” a class of employee termed “non-vulnerable” to return to work?

Near as I can figure, the employer would want to do this to promote safety; a laudable goal.

However, that is not precisely the approach an employer in New York State is empowered to take.

Under both the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the New York Human Rights Law (“HRL”), employers are barred from discriminating against employees on the basis of real or perceived disability. This means that a NY employer who knows—or suspects—an employee might be particularly “vulnerable” (in this case, to COVID-19, but in other cases, due to pregnancy, or other medical conditions), is barred from simply labeling that employee “vulnerable” and taking steps to limit or change the terms of their employment on the basis of that conclusion. 

Rather, disability law is set up to empower employees to identify their needs, and then—under the most confidential circumstances possible—work with their employer to receive reasonable accommodations in consideration of those needs.

For example, a person whose medical history means that they might be more vulnerable to COVID-19 would work with their medical provider to provide documentation setting forth the risks and requesting a reasonable accommodation on the basis of those risks.

Employers are always welcome to let employees know the ways in which they may request accommodations. For instance, as libraries, museums, and archives consider limited or full reopening, employers can transmit those plans to their employees, and invite them to submit any request for accommodations based on the anticipated additional exposure to on-site visitors.

Think of it in the same way your institution might think of planning a large event that would invite the maximum number of people possible to your library or a rented venue. When planning for an event that will attract a large number of people, almost every institution will consider the need to accommodate people who use mobility devices. They might not contact those people in advance, even if they know they're coming…rather, the event will be planned with those accommodations in mind.

A good example of this, of relevance to the current COVID-19 crisis, is an employee with a respiratory disability.  As we know, people who have had respiratory illnesses in the past may be especially vulnerable to COVID-19 now.  These are people who may request accommodations—potentially including the ability to work off-site—based on a disability (a good list of accommodations for respiratory issues can be found here, on the Job Accommodation Network).

So, with all that being said, the answer to the member’s questions (Can they set policies that exclude vulnerable employees from being able to return to work? Can they set policies requiring non-vulnerable employees to return to work?) is: NOT AS SUCH.

However.

Employers can most certainly, when otherwise allowed by law, policy, contract, and Executive Order, require employees to return to work.  After that…

Once an employer is able/decides to re-open, in addition to any re-opening conditions, the employer must consider any requests for reasonable accommodations.  This could absolutely include modifications for those whose disabilities render them vulnerable to COVID-19.  The employer can even generally pre-plan to offer those modifications.  Or they can make working from home, or working on-site, optional (if the work can, in the sole determination of the employer, still be done).  But what they can’t do is pre-sort their employees by “vulnerability.”

There is one final critical point to make here, at this time (May 19, 2020).

Institutions re-opening as part of “NY Forward,” may be required to monitor the health of their employees in a way that typically would seem intrusive, and in some contexts, would even be illegal.

For example, here is a sample of the monitoring required under NY Forward, taken from a sample safety plan.  NOTE: this is taken from the NYForward’s Phase One Retail Summary, and is provided as an example, only:

Employees who are sick should stay home or return home, if they become ill at work.

[Employers must] [i]mplement mandatory health screening assessment (e.g. questionnaire, temperature check) before employees begin work each day and for essential visitors (but not customers), asking about (1) COVID-19 symptoms in past 14 days, (2) positive COVID-19 test in past 14 days, and/or (3) close contact with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 case in past 14 days.

Assessment responses must be reviewed every day and such review must be documented.

Employees who present with COVID-19 symptoms should be sent home to contact their health care provider for medical assessment and COVID-19 testing. If tested positive, employee may only return completing a 14-day quarantine. Employees who present with no symptoms but have tested positive in past 14 days may only return to work after completing a 14-day quarantine.

As stated, this is the procedure for Phase 1 re-opening of limited retail operations.  When will libraries subject to closure in NY be able to re-open under NY Forward, and under what terms?  As I write this, the New York Library Association, NYLA, has this on their COVID-19 page, which states^[1]:

With input from our partners from the Public Library System Directors Organization (PULISDO), NYLA has been advocating for libraries to be permissively included in phase two.  This would allow libraries to be a phased re-opening processed, to be determined at the local level, as early as when their region enters Phase Two.  The decision on when, as well as the steps and procedures for re-opening, are best determined locally, and in conjunction with the local library system and county Department of Health.

This is a critical service to association and public libraries by NYLA, and every board and director should be monitoring this site for updates.

Of course, some libraries may have determined that the current workforce restrictions don’t apply to them at all (that they are exempt right along with school districts and local governments).  And it is possible some libraries and museums, affiliated with larger institutions, will not be able to open until their region hits “Phase Four” (covering educational institutions).  And it may be that by the point libraries are given the go-ahead, the emergency has abated to the point where monitoring of employees won’t be required. 

But any library contemplating opening, in addition to being ready to consider ADA accommodations for those more vulnerable to COVID-19, needs to be considering these possible employee monitoring requirements, as well as the need to adopt any NY Forward-required Safety Plan, or similar documentation showing they are taking defined, affirmative steps to protect employee and public safety.

Public and association libraries developing the policies they need to re-open have a large, complex task before them.  Thank you for a question that explores a critical consideration of that work.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

This question is from a school district public library.  Before answering it, I called the library director who sent it in.

Why?  Well, first, I wanted to introduce myself.  When a question has a lot of nuance and potential long-term ramifications, I like the member to know the answer comes from a real human being, not just a faceless attorney in Buffalo, NY.

Second, I wanted to check in on some details.  As other school district public libraries can attest to, the minutia of elections and budget votes can get very technical—as well as personal (and sometimes passionate). Getting those details right is both an art and a science.

And finally...I'm not gonna lie. Sitting alone in my office, with my treasured staff working from home, cut off from our normal busy but generally cheery atmosphere, I might have been a tad lonely.  Although anyone who works with me will tell you that half the time I am working in an introverted and ADD-infused cloud, four weeks of pandemic isolation have taken their toll. It was nice to call the member and connect at a human level.

How did the conversation go? I'll keep that part confidential.

Let’s take a brief aside to review the “Ask the Lawyer” model.

For members who use “Ask the Lawyer,” there are often two concrete results from the submission of the question:

The most common result is a post to the “Recently Asked Questions” (“RAQ”) site, which will contain generic guidance with no identifying details, so a general assessment of the legal issue can be shared with the largest possible impacted library community.

The second result, which doesn't occur for every question (but it's still pretty frequent) is a “confidential memo” just for the member and their council.  This “confidential memo” supplements the general input with confidential legal advice, and lets us address any unique details that pertain to only that member.

This is how the 3R’s maximize the resources (legal fees) used to get the legal guidance and advice, while also enabling timely services to their members.  And as I’ve reviewed, it is also how lonely attorneys can occasionally arrange a phone call to socialize about a legal need during pandemic-imposed isolation.

So, again…how did the conversation with the member go?  As I said, it’s confidential. But let's just say, when I call a librarian, I expect some good conversation, and this member did not disappoint.

And with that, here is my generic “Recently Asked Questions” input on this situation:

The first priority in assessing any matter related to an election or budget vote is to consider any past extraordinary details—such as a previous controversy or contested procedures.  As they say in the “Music Man”: You gotta know the territory.[1]  If there has been any past issue or hostility, planning to navigate a postponed election with those sensitivities in mind is wise.

Next (and this is essential), is setting up to ensure consistent and well-communicated support about the election from leaders and stakeholders: in this case, the board, the staff, the library’s system, the local school district, and (even if the election is not in their purview) the county Board of Elections.  This includes communication about the postponement, and the re-set proceedings.

Why is this a critical step? When you're sailing into uncharted waters, it's good to sail with a fleet, and to cross-check each other’s navigation.

And finally (but critically), before making any announcements or plans, check your charter, bylaws, and date of formation.  Some libraries will have provisions in them relevant to this situation, and per sub-section 8 of Section 260 of the NY Education Law (controlling school district public library elections), a library chartered before April 30, 1971 may have a bit more leeway in these matters, as a matter of law.  Further, your library may have its own notice requirements or procedures, on top of the base-line legal requirements.

Now, as to the present circumstances, let’s parse the relevant content of Executive Order 202.12:

Circulation, filing, and collection of any designating petitions, or independent nominating petitions for any office that would otherwise be circulated or filed pursuant to the Election Law, Education Law or any other consolidated law for any office commencing March 31, 2020 are hereby postponed.

Any school board, library board, or village election scheduled to take place in April or May of 2020 is hereby postponed until at least June 1, 2020, and subject to further directive as to the timing, location or manner of voting for such elections.

As if this whole exercise isn’t going to be complicated enough, the first thing I need to note is that, under Education Law Section 260 (sub-section 7), school district public libraries have between April 1 to the end of June to hold their elections.  So just be aware: EO 202.13 did not delay all scheduled elections (only those set for “April or May).  So, for this answer, we’ll only address elections set for April or May.

Next, we need to check in not only with Education Law Section 260, but its companion Section 2018, which addresses the filing of petitions:

Each petition shall be filed in the office of the clerk of the district between the hours of nine a.m. and five p.m., not later than the thirtieth day preceding the school meeting or election at which the candidates nominated are to be elected. [emphasis added]

And of course, Education law Section 2004, which requires notice be given:

“…at least forty-five days before said meeting, in two newspapers if there shall be two, or in one newspaper if there shall be but one, having general circulation within such district. But if no newspaper shall then have general circulation therein, the said notice shall be posted in at least twenty of the most public places in said district forty-five days before the time of such meeting.”

So, with all that, what are the answers to the member’s questions?

First question: Do we have to do a legal notice that the vote is postponed and do new legal notices once we have a date?

My assessment is that the Executive Order is sufficient notice that the vote is postposed.  However, once the proceedings can be re-scheduled, a library will need to publish new notices. Further, it is important to note that the EO hints there will be “further directive as to the timing, location or manner of voting for such elections” coming from the Governor (or perhaps guidance from NYSED, upon direction of the Governor).

I imagine such “further directive” will take into account that typically, libraries must give at least 45 days’ notice.  But in any event, right now, school district public library elections are in a holding pattern, and the boards and leadership need to stay alert for further directions on next steps.

That said, a discussion with stakeholders, to ensure your library is ready to set its proceeding when the time comes, might be wise.  This could include a notice about the postponed proceedings, and direction as to where to look for next steps.

Here is a template:

Consistent with Executive Order 202.13, the [NAME] Library’s elections and budget vote are postponed, and the library is awaiting further direction from the state regarding rescheduling.  The Library will publish further notice and information to the public regarding the election as soon as we are able.  Questions about elections in [COUNTY] County can be directed to the [COUNTY] County Board of Elections at (###)###-####.

Second question: Can we reopen the opportunity for people to file a petition to run for the board?

This is fascinating.

The way I see it, 202.13’s “postponement” of elections means the thirty-day deadline for filing a designating petition will automatically be re-set to thirty days before whatever the new election will be.  This is because under Education Law Sections 260(8) and 2018, the deadline for filing is not a fixed date, but a deadline calculated based on the date of the election.  So, I think being ready to ask people to step up and get designated so you have sufficient nominees—especially if there were none duly submitted by the last deadline—is a good idea.

Of course, right now all collection and filing of designating petitions are also “postponed” (see the first excerpted paragraph of the Executive Order).   And the deadlines for petitions are going to be tough to hit before the July 1 statutory deadline. And at some point, there may be a decision that previous submissions will not be re-opened.

The next “directive” on this issue will have to tackle the issue of meeting the notification and petition filing deadlines, as well as the implications for those libraries that were in the notice period, and those that were not.

This is where conferring with the local Board of Elections officials, and the school district, even if they do not oversee your library’s elections, will be so critical.  They will have the insight and probably some inside information to share about how this will be configured.  And for those libraries with a lawyer, this is the time to involve them (before final decisions are made).

To put this in context, right now although critical, the election is probably only one of the numerous high priority issues your library board is considering. First and foremost is likely the on-going well-being of the library and its role in the anticipated recovery of your community.

With that in mind, I suggest any board facing this situation also review the guidance on using a crisis management for public libraries, and factor the monitoring and messaging around this issue into their response plan.

If and when we get an update or “further directives,” we’ll post any update to this answer.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

This question is rather like asking an astronautical engineer: When on a spacewalk, are there any safety procedures specifically related to securing my helmet as I exit the airlock? 

Such a question could inspire an initial reaction like:  Safety concerns?  In SPACE???  Blazing comets,[1] the safety concerns start the moment you blast off!

But upon reflecting on the actual question, the calm, composed answer might be: “To ensure integrity of the pressure garment assembly, double-check the neck-dam’s connection to the helmet’s attaching ring.”[2]

Lawyers get this way addressing questions related to children and liability.  Our first reaction is to think about everything that can go wrong.  But then we calm down and focus on the specific issue at hand.

So, here is my calm, composed answer to the member’s very specific question:

There are two potential instances where a public library offering a program for unaccompanied minors might be obligated by law to collect emergency contact information.

FIRST INSTANCE

If the program the library is hosting is a camp required by law to have a “Safety Plan,” applicable regulations arguably require that the library gather the child’s emergency medical treatment and contact information.[3]

SECOND INSTANCE

If the library is paying a child performer as part of an event, the law requires that the library must collect the child performer’s parent/guardian information before the performance.[4]

Other than the above instances, while such a practice may be required by an insurance carrier,[5] a landlord, or event sponsor, there is no state law or regulation that makes collecting emergency contact information a specific requirement of a public library.

I do have two additional considerations, though.

FIRST CONSIDERATION

 “Emergency contact” information provided by the parents/guardians, in a signed document drafted expressly for your library, is generally the best course of action when welcoming groups of unaccompanied minors for events not covered by your library’s usual policies. 

I write this because Murphy’s Law (which is not on the bar exam, but remains a potent force in the world) will ensure the one time there is an incident at your youth program, the district’s automation system will be down.

Which brings us to the….

SECOND CONSIDERATION

Libraries and educational institutions sharing automation systems must make sure that such data exchange does not violate either FERPA (which bars educational institutions from sharing certain student information), or CPLR 4509 (which bars libraries from sharing user information).

Emergency contact information maintained by a school is potentially a FERPA-protected education record.[6]  If FERPA-protected, it is illegal for any third party—such as a public library—to access it unless there is an agreement in place with certain required language AND the library’s use of the information is in the students’ “legitimate educational interests.” [7]

Of course, given the right circumstances, meeting these criteria is perfectly possible.  In fact, such agreements can be a routine part of a school’s operations.   But just like with a space helmet before leaving the airlock, its best to confirm that everything is in place before you take the next step.[8]

Thanks for a thought-provoking question.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

Before we get to the nitty-gritty on this question (and we will), let’s reflect on why libraries charge fines and replacement costs in the first place:

• To encourage timely return of materials
• To offset staff time and resources consumed by retrieval efforts
• To replace items when retrieval efforts are ineffective

And always, lurking in the background, is the notion that fines and replacement costs are an alternative to the most under-utilized section of the NYS Education law, the criminal provision in Section 265:

Whoever wilfully detains any book…belonging to any public or incorporated library…shall be punished by a fine of not less than one nor more than twenty-five dollars, or by imprisonment in jail not exceeding six months…..

So far, I have not had a client use their “one phone call” to let me know they have been arrested on an “265,” but the possibility is never far from my mind.

Of course, no one picks a library career to pursue their dream of arresting people who love (and lose) books.  And, although less draconian, I bet no one picks a library career for the joy of assessing late fees.  That said, library materials costs money, and people can be irresponsible about returning items to the library.  So what’s an institution to do?

Some libraries are experimenting with no-fine models[1], since fines can have a disproportionate impact on those in poverty.  Others have great success with routine “amnesty” days and other creative ways to take the sting out of returning books late. And still others want to make sure that the traditional model is as streamlined and legally compliant as possible.  That is what the member’s question is about.

A “bankruptcy discharge policy” is a logical component of a library’s approach to fines, replacement costs, and efforts to collect them.  It addresses the potential “dischargeability” (wiping out) of library fines when a person seeks the protection and “fresh start” created by bankruptcy.  It can also help libraries (and their collection agencies) follow the law, which gives people seeking bankruptcy very specific protections.

Before we address the member’s specific questions about adopting such a policy, it is important to take a moment to reflect on (legal) language.  This is because there is a basis to argue that overdue fines and replacement costs, while valid conditions of having a library card, might not qualify as typical commercial “debts;” this could mean that in many cases, libraries owed fines and replacement moneys might not be precisely “creditors.” This is pointed out in the 1997 case Riebe v. Jeurgensmeyer[2], where the judge writes:

The origin of this federal case is a minor's failure to return a library book. In 1995, Elizabeth Riebe, a minor, borrowed a library book from the St. Charles Public Library ("the Library"). The due date came and went without Ms. Riebe returning it. The Library waited. After Ms. Riebe failed to return the book for six months, the Library retained Defendants [a collection firm] to write to her parents ("Plaintiffs") requesting payment of $ 29.95. 

Addressed to Plaintiffs, the letter, as Plaintiffs see it, implied that they, or their daughter, could be arrested and imprisoned for intentional theft of public library property. Attached to the letter was a copy of the provisions of the Illinois Criminal Code. Rather than paying the $ 29.95 or at least returning the book, and thereby putting the matter to rest, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in federal court, alleging that Defendants' letter violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq.(1996).

In ruling that the FDCPA doesn’t apply to attempts collect library fines (and thus that the library could not be liable for the zeal of their collection agency under the FDCPA) federal Judge Charles R. Norgle (who clearly esteems libraries) wrote:

Here, there was no initial "business dealing" creating an obligation to pay, only an obligation to return a library book. In theory, this may have created some type of contract, but not in the context of a "business dealing" as contemplated by the FDCPA, e.g, the purchase of consumer goods or services. … Rather, the borrowing of a library book is a public privilege that largely depends on trust and the integrity of the borrower. [emphasis added]

Now, the FDCPA is not the Bankruptcy Code, and it is possible that a person seeking relief from debt under the Code and might be able to reduce or completely discharge their fines and replacement charges from a library.  But for over twenty years, Riebe has been cited as good law, so it is possible that this view of library fines and replacement costs as something more fundamental that a business debt could carry over. 

I emphasize this because it means some types of library fines and costs might be dischargeable, but others, since they are not consumer “debt” in the traditional sense, might not.[3]

So, with all that, let’s get to the nitty-gritty:

Are replacement costs for library materials exempt from or subject to discharge of debt? Overdue fines?

Because of the factors cited above, there can be no one-size-fits all answer to this!  It will depend on a few factors.  Under certain circumstances (replacement costs, fines connected to vandalism or wanton theft) the court might rule that what’s owed to the library is not a “dischargeable” debt.  But that might not be the case for the average family declaring bankruptcy because they got swept at the knees due to illness or job loss, and who might have additional hardships to show to the court.  As with many things in bankruptcy, it will depend on the circumstances.

Fees levied in an attempt to recover materials (i.e. collection agency fees)?

I would argue that imposing additional administrative costs for retaining a collection agent risks transforming the library-patron relationship described so well by Judge Norgle in Riebe.  In doing this, the likelihood of the costs being dischargeable increases.  But again, it will depend on the underlying nature of the fine or cost.  Someone who checked out 10 DVD’s on their first week as a cardholder and never returned them might have a tough time proving that the costs aren’t the result of theft (and thus non-dischargeable).

Are we allowed to impose restrictions on borrowers whose debt has been discharged, if they have not returned materials owned by the library? For example, can we deny loans to a borrower until they return library materials, or pay for them, if the debt has been discharged; or can we limit the number of items loaned for a period of time?

Regardless of where your board may fall on its philosophical approach to fines and collections, any time a cardholder declares bankruptcy, all efforts to collect fines or replacement costs should cease.  Critically, this means if borrowing privileges are only suspended due to unpaid fines, borrowing privileges should immediately be reinstated.  On the flip side, suspension due to unreturned materials (for which no replacement cost is being charged) can continue. 

The most important thing, as the member suggests, is to respect the process when your library is notified of it. Any library, or agent of a library, who gets a notice that a cardholder is filing bankruptcy should cease all financially-related sanctions.  If there are extenuating circumstances (let’s say the amount owed is related to an act of vandalism, or failure to return 50 full-color art books) refer the matter to library’s attorney, or alert the bankruptcy trustee, who might contest discharge under the precise factors of the bankruptcy code.

With all that in mind, I suggest some alternative language for a policy, which would addresses both the human aspect of bankruptcy, and some of these subtleties:

Bankruptcy Discharge Policy

The Library understands that sometimes people must seek relief from debt in bankruptcy and are entitled to a “fresh start” after such relief is obtained.

Procedure

Cardholders seeking a discharge in bankruptcy of moneys owed to the library should notify the library of having filed for bankruptcy.

Once the library is properly notified that a bankruptcy has been filed, the library and/or its agent will immediately cease contacting the cardholder about the financial amount(s) owed. 

The library shall then evaluate its response to the notice.  In making such an evaluation, the nature of the conduct leading to any fines, costs, and suspended privileges will be considered.  In particular, but not exclusively, the discharge of any costs related to wanton destruction or significant failure to return borrowed items may be contested.

After notice of filing, but prior to discharge, if borrowing privileges are suspended solely on the basis of unpaid fines and replacement costs, borrowing privileges will be immediately reinstated; borrowing privileges suspended on the basis of unreturned items, for which no replacement cost is sought, will remain suspended.

To ensure all charges are listed on the bankruptcy schedule, the cardholder or their attorney may contact the library to request a statement of account at any time; such contact must be in writing so there is no risk of the library appearing to have violated the bar on collection activity.  An attorney or trustee requesting this information on behalf of the cardholder must include permission from the cardholder as required by CPLR 4509.

The library supports that people seeking relief in bankruptcy are entitled to a “fresh start” after the discharge of debt(s).  Upon presentation of a “Discharge of Debtor” listing the library, all moneys owing shall be removed from the cardholder’s record, up to the date of discharge, for the cardholder and any minor children in the family. 

Further, if replacement costs are discharged, the library will not regard the failure to return the corresponding item as a basis to bar reinstatement of borrowing privileges.

Late returns or losses after the date of discharge will be subject to routine policies, including fines and suspension of borrowing privileges.

This approach both maximizes the potential for a bankruptcy discharge to be the compassionate re-set of the cardholder’s account it is intended to be…while taking into consideration that not all charges might be worthy of discharge (which is up to the bankruptcy court to decide).

Thank you for this careful question.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

WNYLRC ATTORNEY’S RESPONSE

This has been a tough question to mull over!  That is because the answer is superficially “yes,” but in reality: “no.”

How do we get to this disjointed conclusion?  Schedule MI-1, as the member did, is a great place to start.

From there, although it is a bit older (in Internet years), the 2010 guidance from the New York State Archives, “Developing a Policy for Managing E-mail” (to which the Schedule MI-1 refers), speaks to this issue.  On page 7, it states:

“Another management strategy has been to rely on the “low­tech” method of printing out important emails to integrate them into a paper recordkeeping system. Printing emails is still a viable option for a small organization with limited technology support and finances, provided that individuals across the organization consistently apply records retention requirements to the printed emails, capture all essential metadata, and file the emails with their respective attachments.” [emphasis added]

This would suggest that, for certain institutions, under certain circumstances, e-mail does not need to be retained in its original form to be an “original document.”

However, while it would be elegant, I cannot endorse this approach.  As the guidance further states on page 13:

“The concept of “official copy” is problematic when dealing with email because of the volume of emails, the difficulty of controlling all copies, and the occasional need to prove an email was received as well as sent.” [emphasis added]

Since 2010, even more concerns make this a dubious solution. For a private institution, the requirements of accreditors, insurance carriers, and other stakeholders must be considered…while for libraries and archives that are part of local governments, per NYS regulation, the conversion of archival electronic records must be conducted in consultation with the State Archives, who may or may not endorse such a policy, based on the categories of documentation it would impact.

That said, for certain categories of documentation transmitted or received as e-mail (as defined by MI-1 or private policy), the “print approach” may work.  As a wholesale solution, however, it is not legally viable.