MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

Here we are in January, 2022, and frustratingly, there is no ONE right answer to this question.[1]  Between OSHA, CDC, WHO, and NYSDOH, together with state-wide and local Executive Orders and states of emergency, the answer to this question is a big, tangled web.

That said, there are THREE things I can say for certain, and they do answer this question:

1.  Regardless of what Emergency Order, law, or regulation is in effect, libraries and museums that are operating in any way should be doing so per a written and routinely updated Safety Plan.[2]

2.  Regardless of what Emergency Order, law, or regulation is in effect, libraries and museums operating under a Safety Plan that involves use of PPE and sanitization supplies should provide that equipment.[3]  Libraries relying on social distancing should continue to demarcate areas where it must be maintained.

3.  Regardless of what Emergency Order, law, or regulation is in effect, libraries and museums operating under a written Safety Plan that involves employer-required testing must provide those tests.[4]

Again: while different laws, regulations, and orders create these three obligations, I can say that they remain.

After that, I can only say: when updating Safety Plans (which should either be done, or ruled out, monthly, and ad hoc as guidance changes), libraries should confirm their obligations with either their lawyer or their local health department.

For libraries looking for a model, a good place to start is the HERO Act template found at  https://dol.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2021/09/p765-ny-hero-act-model-airborne-infectious-disease-exposure-prevention-plan-09-21_0.pdf.  For municipal libraries that operate largely in conjunction with their municipal government (sharing HR policies, hazard response plans, etc.), it might be appropriate to look to their municipality's mandated[5] "Public Health Emergency Operations Plan."

I realize this doesn't eliminate the need to swim in the alphabet soup of authorities offering different, and sometimes divergent, guidance.  But by relying on your local health department to confirm obligations, hopefully a library can focus more energy on its mission to serve its community...while also demonstrably living up to its duty to safeguard its workforce.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

A library needs two documents to address this issue:

1.  Its template contract or "rider"[1] for performers and presenters;[2]and

2.  Its current Safety Plan.

How does the contract/rider come into play?  One of the conditions it should list is a "behavior requirement," requiring that any person performing a service at or for the library "will abide by the library's policies, and the reasonable requests of library staff."[3]

How does the Safety Plan[4]  come into play?  This is the document that likely addresses vaccination, PPE, and other safety requirements for those visiting your library.

Now, see how the two work together: the Safety Plan is a library policy; the "behavior requirement" means visitors must follow it.

When the two documents are assessed together, if it isn't crystal-clear that the library requires proof of vaccination before performance, the Safety Plan or the contract/riders--or both--can be amended to require:

To maximize the safety of in-person events, the ABC library requires all providers of in-person events to provide current proof of vaccination against COVID-19 at least seven days prior to the event.

 The ABC library will consider remote options if a prospective performer or presenter requests such a change as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA due to a disability.

How can this be done so simply?

While there are many nuances that libraries must consider prior to flatly requiring vaccination for all employees,[5] WHEN IT COMES TO CONTRACTORS PROVIDING ONE-TIME OR PERIODIC PERFORMANCES,[6] unless there are grant requirements or other obligations specifically hemming a library in, a library can be more blunt in its requirements.

While they can be a very beloved part of a library's offerings, independent contractors have less rights than employees when it comes to a library imposing the conditions on performance. This is because, whether incorporated, or working "DBA", independent contractors are free to accept and reject the terms of any particular contract--and thus have more leverage and freedom than employees.[7]  And because of that, when it comes to requiring them to provide proof of vaccination, there are a few less legal hoops to jump through than with employees (new, or otherwise).

So, after all that, what were the questions? "What about performers or presenters we hire to come into the library, especially to work with children? Are we allowed to ask/require proof of vaccination status before signing a contract?"

The answer is: with the right policy and contract terms[8] in place: yes.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

Underlying all these highly specific questions is one Big Question: Can employers require vaccination? "Ask the Lawyer" addressed the Big Question on December 18, 2020, and that answer is perma-linked at: https://www.wnylrc.org/ask-the-lawyer/raqs/186.  For any reader who is new to this issue, or who needs a refresher, please read #186, because this answer uses that background to jump right into things.

And with that, let's jump right into things...

Question: Can we require new hires at a library to be vaccinated?

Answer: Only if the library's safety plan requires it, AND the job description of the specific position contains essential duties that cannot be performed without risk of transmission .[1]

Question: If so, how should we word this on the job application?

Answer: Here is one way:

"The essential duties of this position and the library's safety protocols require vaccination for COVID, therefore, an up-to-date COVID vaccination status is a requirement of this position."

Question: Are we allowed to ask for proof of vaccination?

Answer: Yes, but if you do, the library should have a written plan to maintain confidentially (this should be part of a Safety Plan).

Question: What if the new hire is not vaccinated because of religious reasons?

Answer: If being vaccinated is a "bona fide" occupational requirement of the position (which is what a library does by confirming that the essential duties of the position and the library's safety protocols require vaccination for COVID), a person who is not vaccinated will not become the new hire--regardless of medical or religious reasons.

As the question points out, this is a high-stakes game.  So, it is critical to work with the library's HR consultant or civil service liaison to update the job description so the front-facing work, or collaborative work, that require vaccination for that particular position is genuine.  If the "essential duties" of the position include numerous activities that could be done remotely, or in solitude, it may be that the job can be modified to accommodate either health or religious needs--both of which must be given maximum deference whenever the job requirements and the resources of the library make it possible.

Question: If the library requires those who are not vaccinated to get COVID tested weekly, does the library have to pay for those tests?

Answer:  I am not comfortable endorsing a Safety Plan or any type of procedure that includes a COVID testing requirement based solely on vaccination status.

Here is why:

The EEOC is currently the go-to agency for guidance on balancing privacy, disability, and employment needs when it comes to COVID.

Current EEOC guidance (posted at https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-covid-19-and-ada-rehabilitation-act-and-other-eeo-laws) as of August 16, 2021, states:

The ADA requires that any mandatory medical test of employees be “job related and consistent with business necessity.” Applying this standard to the current circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, employers may take screening steps to determine if employees entering the workplace have COVID-19 because an individual with the virus will pose a direct threat to the health of others. Therefore an employer may choose to administer COVID-19 testing to employees before initially permitting them to enter the workplace and/or periodically to determine if their presence in the workplace poses a direct threat to others. The ADA does not interfere with employers following recommendations by the CDC or other public health authorities regarding whether, when, and for whom testing or other screening is appropriate. Testing administered by employers consistent with current CDC guidance will meet the ADA’s “business necessity” standard. [Emphasis added]

Here's where the COVID daisy-chain begins: the EEOC is basing its notion of "basic necessity" on the guidance from the CDC.

Here is the "current CDC guidance" (posted at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/testing.html) as of August 16, 2021:

Who should get tested for current infection:

• People who have symptoms of COVID-19.
• Most people who have had close contact (within 6 feet for a total of 15 minutes or more over a 24-hour period) with someone with confirmed COVID-19.

-Fully vaccinated people should be tested 3-5 days following a known exposure to someone with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 and wear a mask in public indoor settings for 14 days or until they receive a negative test result.

-People who have tested positive for COVID-19 within the past 3 months and recovered do not need to get tested following an exposure as long as they do not develop new symptoms.

• Unvaccinated people who have taken part in activities that put them at higher risk for COVID-19 because they cannot physically distance as needed to avoid exposure, such as travel, attending large social or mass gatherings, or being in crowded or poorly-ventilated indoor settings.
• People who have been asked or referred to get tested by their healthcare provider, or state, tribal, local or territorial health department.

Nowhere on this list is "unvaccinated employees who report to work as usual." [2] A dilemma, right?

Not as I see it.

As I see it, while we can all find something to complain about in the lurching, evolving guidance from the alphabet soup of EEOC, NYSDOL, OSHA, NYSDOH, WHO and CDC, this current configuration makes perfect sense.

Why? Because this approach achieves balance.  Within these confines, libraries (along with other employers) are positioned to structure job requirements to be as safe as possible--not just for employees, but for the communities they serve.  The structure and requirements, however, must be "bona fide," meaning that personal safety, privacy, freedom of association, and respect for conscience are positioned to be honored, while ensuring they do not gain primacy to the detriment of public safety as a whole.

For these reasons, I will not answer the question as posed.  However, I will answer:

Question: If the library requires employees who trip a current CDC risk factor (showing symptoms, close contact, etc.) to get COVID tested, does the library have to pay for those tests?

Answer: I have found no requirement that an employer pay for a COVID test that is used as a pre-requisite for returning to work.  Of course, for employees who are sick, or on mandatory quarantine, or have been sent home by their employer for tripping a COVID factor, the protections for paid sick leave[3] that were set up earlier in the pandemic still apply.

And I will add this bonus question:

Question: If the library decides to use routine random COVID testing of all on-site employees as part of a Safety Plan, does the library have to pay for those tests?

Answer:  An employer cannot require an employee to pay for a COVID test,[4] and cannot deduct the cost of such a test from a paycheck, so if the employer sets up random testing as part of a Safety Plan, the employer must pay for it.

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

This question comes at a very challenging time.[1]

The question is difficult because right now, the World Health Organization is looking at the "Delta Variant" of COVID-19 and telling the world to consider continuing to use masks and social distancing while inside.[2]

New York, of course, after a 6-day scramble, started following the Center for Disease Control's May 13 "surprise" guidelines stating that vaccinated people no longer need to wear masks or social distance indoors.[3]  And as of July 1, 2021, the state announced that almost all COVID-related restrictions were lifted.[4]

Where does this leave us?

Throughout the Pandemic, when asked about how to interpret and follow law, regulations, and Executive Orders governing the state's COVID response, my watchword has been: "Safety first."

After that, I have listed what is required at that point in time, and then referred libraries and cultural institutions to resources about how they can develop a Safety Plan[5] crafted to suit their unique identity (by "unique identity" I mean things like a large library with outdated HVAC and windows that don't open, has different considerations than a small library with assurance of constant fresh air).

With so much uncertainly at this time, my tired playbook is getting tested.  But I'll use it to try and answer each of the member's questions:

Now that Open Meetings Law modifications have been lifted, are we still required to maintain physical distancing for board meetings?

If your (now optional, but if the board keeps it in place, enforceable) Safety Plan still requires physical distancing, then yes.

We have a fifteen member board which makes it difficult to spread our trustees out. I understand that we can ask trustees whether they have been vaccinated: If all are vaccinated, do we have to maintain physical distancing?

If your Safety Plan has opted to continue using the NYS May 19th guidance, and the meeting is not exceeding the occupancy threshold, no, you do not.  HOWEVER, there is nothing to stop the board from deciding that, in the interest of safety and enabling each trustee to take whatever steps they need to feel safe, they are going to allow some trustees to attend from a remote location.[6]

If some of them are not vaccinated, do we required all the trustees to wear masks?

The WHO would (currently[7]) say: yes.

The CDC and the State of NY would (currently[8]) say: no.

For what it's worth, I tend to follow the most cautious reputable source at any given time (so would say: there is ample ground for your Safety Plan to require this, while there is also ample ground for your board to revise the Safety Plan to require only the bare minimum of advised precautions).

Do we provide physical distancing for the ones who are not fully vaccinated?

If that is at all possible, I strongly support that idea.  Being able to show an institution took the time to consider the best way to keep its community safe is good from any angle: mission, legal compliance, and employee/community relations.

I would like to host a staff luncheon (I understand that is now allowable[9]) but some of my staff are not vaccinated. If it is held outside, do we have to maintain physical distancing measures? What about holding the luncheon inside?

It pains me to say it, but sometimes, the law is not the best guide as to what to do!  Legally, if your library is still using the May 19th NYS Guidance, your Safety Plan can allow for this to happen, if you follow the required prescriptions.

However, it makes sense to me to "read the room" and see if such a luncheon would be a team-building exercise, or (because some employees might not feel at ease eating in close proximity to others) risk bad feelings and alienation.  If everyone cannot attend with the same level of comfort, it might be better to come up with an alternate bonding exercise.[10]

Conclusion

I truly wish I could offer more definite guidance.  The truth is, libraries--even with the return to the strict requirements of the Open Meetings Law--have many options for how to proceed.  So as tired as it may sound, put "safety first," and all things will follow from there.

Coda

Since the Powers That Be out there move quickly, here are some snapshots of the current guidance I am referencing in this answer.

Snapshot of the current WHO Guidance:

Snapshot of NY's July 1 announcement:

Snapshot of New York's May 19th Guidance (now largely optional):

Snapshot of current (June 10) OSHA guidance:

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

First question: Yes...with the expiration of the Executive Orders on June 24th, including the Order modifying the Open Meetings law,[1] things are "back to normal."

Or, as the Committee on Open Government, the authority on the State's Open Meetings Law (OML), put it:

So, does this mean "trustees who still want/need to attend remotely from home must disclose their address in the meeting notice?"

Various case law and commentary about the OML has confirmed that when a public body needs to meet via teleconference, the public must be able to attend from any remote location "calling in" to the meeting, and that location should be part of the meeting notice.[2]

Or, as the COOG put it in Advisory Opinion 5535 in 2018:

"So long as the public is permitted to attend at any location at which a member participates and can observe the members wherever they may be, I believe that the members may participate and be counted for purposes of attaining a quorum and for voting, and that a meeting may validly be held." [emphasis added]

For large public bodies such as the Regents, the New York Power Authority, and other entities that must hold publicly accessible meetings, and whose board members may reside in far-flung areas of the state, the use of publicly accessible call-in sites comes with an IT team and a budget.

For a public library, whose members generally reside within that library's area of service, this "back to normal" pretty much means that you're back to meetings in person.

Of course, under the Not-for-Profit Corporation law (which, along with the Education Law, governs the conduct of library meetings), a library board of trustees is allowed to conduct meetings telephonically.[3]  When coupled with the requirements of the OML, however, that latitude is severely reigned in--since whatever space is used for the remote call-in must be accessible to the public, and included in the notice.

For this reason, unless a library trustee is very comfortable inviting the public into their home, I advise against using the "dial in from home" option.[4]

NOTE:  This answer does not consider if a trustee needs to attend remotely due to it being an accommodation under the ADA.  That is a separate and critical question; for now, I'll simply say that adherence to the OML should not rule out consideration of ADA issues.

The transparency created by Education Law 260-a's requirement that public libraries abide by the Open Meetings Law is laudable--but is also based on older notions of technology.  Now that the State of New York has lived under different rules for over a year, we might see some changes in legislation.

But for now, we're "back to normal."

I hope this is helpful.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

[DISCLAIMER: This answer presumes there is no collective bargaining agreement or landlord/municipal host terms that impact the library's flexibility while revising their Safety Plan.]

Okay, with that disclaimer out of the way, here are my "short answers" to these excellent questions:

"[F]or those in shared offices, how do we handle the vaccinated/not vaccinated issue?"

Short answer:  Revise your library's current Safety Plan to specify how it has adopted the 5/19 NY Forward Guidelines (for advice on how to do that, please see my "Long Answer," below).

"Do we go with the honor system and tell those in shared offices that if they are vaccinated, they may go maskless?"  

Short answer:  I advise requiring proof (for the legal/operational rationale behind this opinion, please see my "Long Answer," below).

"I've heard that some restaurants are allowing their servers to go maskless if they show proof of their vaccination to their employer.  Would we be allowed to do something like that?"

Short answer:  Yes (for more on that, please see my "Long Answer", below!).

Long Answer

This question comes at a good time, since on June 10, 2021, the U.S. Occupational Safety & Hazard Administration ("OSHA") updated its guidance for employers on protecting workers from COVID-19.^[1]  This new "6/10 OSHA Guidance" speaks to questions like these. 

But first, a quick recap. 

When the CDC came out with their "surprise" interim guidance for fully vaccinated people on May 13th, 2021 (the "5/13 CDC Guidance"), it took New York six days to incorporate it (into the "5/19 NY Guidance").

OSHA, on the other hand, took a bit more than six days.^[2]  But by June 10th, here's what they had to say:

CDC's Interim Public Health Recommendations for Fully Vaccinated People explain that under most circumstances, fully vaccinated people need not take all the precautions that unvaccinated people should take. For example, CDC advises that most fully vaccinated people can resume activities without wearing masks or physically distancing, except where required by federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial laws, rules and regulations, including local business and workplace guidance.

And from there, OSHA takes it granular.^[3]

The 6/10 OSHA Guidance sets out an array of factors for employers and workers to not just consider in isolation, but to think about as a continuum of risk assessment and safety measures.  The factors they list include consideration of vaccination status, and shared office space.

Because it is so critical that employers get this right, I am putting this "6/10 OSHA Guidance"^[4] below.  Now that we have this resource, I strongly advise employers to refer to it when updating their Safety Plan to include the 5/19 NY Guidance.

And now, for this library's very specific set of questions about non-public, shared office space, here is the rest of my "long answer."

As you can see in OSHA's listing, the consideration of shared office space isn't simply one of vaccination and proximity.  It also involves the consideration of things such as ventilation, worker education, and individual worker vulnerabilities.

Because of this, there is no "one size fits all" answer to this library's question.  Rather, the library should review the non-public, shared workspace against the OSHA criteria, and then craft a customized plan...recognizing that the protocol for areas with up-to-date HVAC systems will be different from a work area near the stacks where there might be very little fresh air. 

This variability is the key consideration of shared non-public workspace.  Your library's safety measures may be different when the weather is cold and workers can't open a window.  Your library's Safety Plan measures may be limited if the workspace is near a rare book collection or other assets requiring precise climate control.  And on top of that (literally, as an add-on after the fact) your library will need to consider the impact that a Safety Plan's working conditions can have on individuals with disclosed, pre-existing conditions (such as allergies, heightened vulnerability to COVID, or a health condition impeding vaccination).^[5]

Within all this variability (which is a LOT for any employer to handle, to say nothing of a library that is also focusing most of its energy on meeting the needs of the public), I advise requesting proof of vaccination for two reasons.  First, it positions an employer to be more confident in their adherence to the plan they develop.  Second, it positions employees to be confident that they are in a position to advocate for their own health.

Now, on the flip side, the employee relations challenge of requiring workers to provide vaccination status can be onerous.  Some people are just not comfortable revealing that type of information, and I totally get it.  BUT the EEOC and the New York State Division of Human Rights have both determined that an employer requesting proof of vaccination is not the same as an employer demanding disclosure of confidential medical information.^[6]  Barring a union contract or other term forbidding the demanding proof of vaccination, employers should be confident they can require it.

That confidence can, in turn, transfer to the employees who are certain that their unmasked and nearby co-workers are vaccinated.  In my experience, nothing can erode trust like an honor system where someone is suspected of being dishonorable.   Further, that suspicion can turn into full-on blame if a worst-case scenario emerges and someone does get sick.

And while the current CDC and NY Forward guidance mean an employer won't likely be successfully sued for using the honor system as opposed to requiring proof, I wouldn't put it past one of my fellow attorneys to try.^[7]  This is especially true if your library's Safety Plan or past planning has identified certain front-facing work or other tasks as "higher" risk, meaning there is an acknowledgement on the record that some work may bring increased exposure.

Okay, to sum up: you don't have to, but it's worth considering requiring proof of vaccination.   But most critically, whatever your library does, if you update your Safety Plan, factor in the new 6/10 OSHA Guidance.

Since the combination of options is extensive (New guidance? Old? Require vaccinations? Proof?) I have laid out a chart below.  Below that are some of the high points of the 6/10 OSHA Guidance, which every employer should read.

I hope this reply makes up for in helpfulness what it poses in complexity.  I wish you calm and careful planning as your library moves into this next phase.

OSHA

Except for workplace settings covered by OSHA's ETS and mask requirements for public transportation, most employers no longer need to take steps to protect their workers from COVID-19 exposure in any workplace, or well-defined portions of a workplace, where all employees are fully vaccinated. Employers should still take steps to protect unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers in their workplaces, or well-defined portions of workplaces. ²

Employers should engage with workers and their representatives to determine how to implement multi-layered interventions to protect unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers and mitigate the spread of COVID-19, including:

1. Grant paid time off for employees to get vaccinated. The Department of Labor and OSHA, as well as other federal agencies, are working diligently to ensure access to COVID-19 vaccinations. CDC provides information on the benefits and safety of vaccinations. Businesses with fewer than 500 employees may be eligible for tax credits under the American Rescue Plan if they provide paid time off for employees who decide to receive the vaccine and to recover from any potential side effects from the vaccine.
2. Instruct any workers who are infected, unvaccinated workers who have had close contact with someone who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, and all workers with COVID-19 symptoms to stay home from work to prevent or reduce the risk of transmission of the virus that causes COVID-19. Ensure that absence policies are non-punitive. Eliminate or revise policies that encourage workers to come to work sick or when unvaccinated workers have been exposed to COVID-19. Businesses with fewer than 500 employees may be eligible for refundable tax credits under the American Rescue Plan if they provide paid time off for sick and family leave to their employees due to COVID-19 related reasons. The ARP tax credits are available to eligible employers that pay sick and family leave for qualified leave from April 1, 2021, through September 30, 2021. More information is available from the IRS.
3. Implement physical distancing for unvaccinated and otherwise at-risk workers in all communal work areas. A key way to protect unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers is to physically distance them from other unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk people (workers or customers) – generally at least 6 feet of distance is recommended, although this is not a guarantee of safety, especially in enclosed or poorly ventilated spaces.

Employers could also limit the number of unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers in one place at any given time, for example by implementing flexible worksites (e.g., telework); implementing flexible work hours (e.g., rotate or stagger shifts to limit the number of such workers in the workplace at the same time); delivering services remotely (e.g., phone, video, or web); or implementing flexible meeting and travel options, all for such workers.

At fixed workstations where unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers are not able to remain at least 6 feet away from other people, transparent shields or other solid barriers (e.g., fire resistant plastic sheeting or flexible strip curtains) can separate these workers from other people. Barriers should block face-to-face pathways between individuals in order to prevent direct transmission of respiratory droplets, and any openings should be placed at the bottom and made as small as possible. The posture (sitting or standing) of users and the safety of the work environment should be considered when designing and installing barriers, as should the need for enhanced ventilation.

4. Provide unvaccinated and otherwise at-risk workers with face coverings or surgical masks, unless their work task requires a respirator or other PPE. Such workers should wear a face covering that covers the nose and mouth to contain the wearer's respiratory droplets and help protect others and potentially themselves. Face coverings should be made of at least two layers of a tightly woven breathable fabric, such as cotton, and should not have exhalation valves or vents. They should fit snugly over the nose, mouth, and chin with no large gaps on the outside of the face. CDC provides general guidance on masks.

Employers should provide face coverings to unvaccinated and otherwise at-risk workers at no cost. Under federal anti-discrimination laws, employers may need to provide reasonable accommodation for any workers who are unable to wear or have difficulty wearing certain types of face coverings due to a disability or who need a religious accommodation under Title VII. In workplaces with employees who are deaf or hard of hearing, employers should consider acquiring masks with clear coverings over the mouth for unvaccinated and otherwise at-risk workers to facilitate lip-reading.

Unless otherwise provided by federal, state, or local requirements, unvaccinated workers who are outdoors may opt not to wear face coverings unless they are at-risk, for example, if they are immunocompromised. Regardless, all workers should be supported in continuing face covering use if they choose, especially in order to safely work closely with other people.

When an employer determines that PPE is necessary to protect unvaccinated and otherwise at-risk workers, the employer must provide PPE in accordance with relevant mandatory OSHA standards and should consider providing PPE in accordance with other industry-specific guidance. Respirators, if necessary, must be provided and used in compliance with 29 CFR 1910.134 (e.g., medical determination, fit testing, training on its correct use), including certain provisions for voluntary use when workers supply their own respirators, and other PPE must be provided and used in accordance with the applicable standards in 29 CFR 1910, Subpart I (e.g., 1910.132 and 133). There are times when PPE is not called for by OSHA standards or other industry-specific guidance, but some workers may have a legal right to PPE as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. Employers are encouraged to proactively inform employees who have a legal right to PPE as a reasonable accommodation for their disability about how to make such a request. Other workers may want to use PPE if they are still concerned about their personal safety (e.g., if a family member is at higher-risk for severe illness, they may want to wear a face shield in addition to a face covering as an added layer of protection). Encourage and support voluntary use of PPE in these circumstances and ensure the equipment is adequate to protect the worker.

For operations where the face covering can become wet and soiled, provide unvaccinated and otherwise at-risk workers with replacements daily or more frequently, as needed. Face shields may be provided for use with face coverings to protect them from getting wet and soiled, but they do not provide protection by themselves. See CDC's Guide to Masks.

Employers with workers in a setting where face coverings may increase the risk of heat-related illness indoors or outdoors or cause safety concerns due to introduction of a hazard (for instance, straps getting caught in machinery) may wish to consult with an occupational safety and health professional to help determine the appropriate face covering/respirator use for their setting.

5. Educate and train workers on your COVID-19 policies and procedures using accessible formats and in language they understand. Train managers on how to implement COVID-19 policies. Communicate supportive workplace policies clearly, frequently, and via multiple methods to promote a safe and healthy workplace. Communications should be in plain language that unvaccinated and otherwise at-risk workers understand (including non-English languages, and American Sign Language or other accessible communication methods, if applicable) and in a manner accessible to individuals with disabilities. Training should be directed at employees, contractors, and any other individuals on site, as appropriate, and should include:
   1. Basic facts about COVID-19, including how it is spread and the importance of physical distancing (including remote work), ventilation, vaccination, use of face coverings, and hand hygiene.
   2. Workplace policies and procedures implemented to protect workers from COVID-19 hazards.

For basic facts, see About COVID-19 and What Workers Need to Know About COVID-19, above and see more on vaccinations, improving ventilation, physical distancing (including remote work), PPE, and face coverings, respectively, elsewhere in this document. Some means of tracking which workers have received this information, and when, could be utilized, by the employer, as appropriate.

In addition, ensure that workers understand their rights to a safe and healthful work environment, whom to contact with questions or concerns about workplace safety and health, and their right to raise workplace safety and health concerns free from retaliation. This information should also be provided in a language that workers understand. (See Implementing Protections from Retaliation, below.) Ensure supervisors are familiar with workplace flexibilities and other human resources policies and procedures.

6. Suggest that unvaccinated customers, visitors, or guests wear face coverings, especially in public-facing workplaces such as retail establishments, if there are unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers in the workplace who are likely to interact with these customers, visitors, or guests. This could include posting a notice or otherwise suggesting unvaccinated people wear face coverings, even if no longer required by your jurisdiction. Individuals who are under the age of 2 or are actively consuming food or beverages on site need not wear face coverings.
7. Maintain Ventilation Systems. The virus that causes COVID-19 spreads between people more readily indoors than outdoors. Improving ventilation is a key engineering control that can be used as part of a layered strategy to reduce the concentration of viral particles in indoor air and the risk of virus transmission to unvaccinated workers in particular. Some measures to improve ventilation are discussed in CDC's Ventilation in Buildings and in the OSHA Alert: COVID-19 Guidance on Ventilation in the Workplace. These recommendations are based on ASHRAE Guidance for Building Operations During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Adequate ventilation will protect all people in a closed space. Key measures include ensuring the HVAC system(s) is operating in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions and design specifications, conducting all regularly scheduled inspections and maintenance procedures, maximizing the amount of outside air supplied, installing air filters with a Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 or higher where feasible, maximizing natural ventilation in buildings without HVAC systems by opening windows or doors, when conditions allow (if that does not pose a safety risk), and considering the use of portable air cleaners with High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filters in spaces with high occupancy or limited ventilation.
8. Perform routine cleaning and disinfection. If someone who has been in the facility within 24 hours is suspected of having or confirmed to have COVID-19, follow the CDC cleaning and disinfection recommendations. Follow requirements in mandatory OSHA standards 29 CFR 1910.1200 and 1910.132, 133, and 138 for hazard communication and PPE appropriate for exposure to cleaning chemicals.
9. Record and report COVID-19 infections and deaths: Under mandatory OSHA rules in 29 CFR 1904, employers are responsible for recording work-related cases of COVID-19 illness on OSHA's Form 300 logs if the following requirements are met: (1) the case is a confirmed case of COVID-19; (2) the case is work-related (as defined by 29 CFR 1904.5); and (3) the case involves one or more relevant recording criteria (set forth in 29 CFR 1904.7) (e.g., medical treatment, days away from work). Employers must follow the requirements in 29 CFR 1904 when reporting COVID-19 fatalities and hospitalizations to OSHA. More information is available on OSHA's website. Employers should also report outbreaks to health departments as required and support their contact tracing efforts.

In addition, employers should be aware that Section 11(c) of the Act prohibits reprisal or discrimination against an employee for speaking out about unsafe working conditions or reporting an infection or exposure to COVID-19 to an employer. In addition, mandatory OSHA standard 29 CFR 1904.35(b) also prohibits discrimination against an employee for reporting a work-related illness.

Note on recording adverse reactions to vaccines: DOL and OSHA, as well as other federal agencies, are working diligently to encourage COVID-19 vaccinations. OSHA does not want to give any suggestion of discouraging workers from receiving COVID-19 vaccination or to disincentivize employers' vaccination efforts. As a result, OSHA will not enforce 29 CFR 1904's recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects from COVID-19 vaccination through May 2022. OSHA will reevaluate the agency's position at that time to determine the best course of action moving forward. Individuals may choose to submit adverse reactions to the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

10. Implement protections from retaliation and set up an anonymous process for workers to voice concerns about COVID-19-related hazards: Section 11(c) of the OSH Act prohibits discharging or in any other way discriminating against an employee for engaging in various occupational safety and health activities. Examples of violations of Section 11(c) could include discriminating against employees for raising a reasonable concern about infection control related to COVID-19 to the employer, the employer's agent, other employees, a government agency, or to the public, such as through print, online, social, or any other media; or against an employee for voluntarily providing and safely wearing their own PPE, such as a respirator, face shield, gloves, or surgical mask.

In addition to notifying workers of their rights to a safe and healthful work environment, ensure that workers know whom to contact with questions or concerns about workplace safety and health, and that there are prohibitions against retaliation for raising workplace safety and health concerns or engaging in other protected occupational safety and health activities (see educating and training workers about COVID-19 policies and procedures, above); also consider using a hotline or other method for workers to voice concerns anonymously.

11. Follow other applicable mandatory OSHA standards: All of OSHA's standards that apply to protecting workers from infection remain in place. These mandatory OSHA standards include: requirements for PPE (29 CFR 1910, Subpart I (e.g., 1910.132 and 133)), respiratory protection (29 CFR 1910.134), sanitation (29 CFR 1910.141), protection from bloodborne pathogens: (29 CFR 1910.1030), and OSHA's requirements for employee access to medical and exposure records (29 CFR 1910.1020). Many healthcare workplaces will be covered by the mandatory OSHA COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard. More information on that standard is available on the OSHA website at [link]. Where the ETS does not apply, employers are required under the General Duty Clause, Section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act, to provide a safe and healthful workplace free from recognized hazards that are causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm .

Appendix: Measures Appropriate for Higher-Risk Workplaces with Mixed-Vaccination Status Workers

Employers should take additional steps to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 for unvaccinated and otherwise at-risk workers in workplaces where there is heightened risk due to the following types of factors:

• Close contact– where unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers are working close to one another, for example, on production or assembly lines. Such workers may also be near one another at other times, such as when clocking in or out, during breaks, or in locker/changing rooms.
• Duration of contact – where unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers often have prolonged closeness to coworkers (e.g., for 8–12 hours per shift). Continued contact with potentially infectious individuals increases the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission.
• Type of contact – unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers who may be exposed to the infectious virus through respiratory droplets in the air—for example, when unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers in a manufacturing or factory setting who have the virus cough or sneeze. It is also possible that exposure could occur from contact with contaminated surfaces or objects, such as tools, workstations, or break room tables. Shared spaces such as break rooms, locker rooms, and entrances/exits to the facility may contribute to their risk.
• Other distinctive factors that may increase risk among these unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers include:
  • A common practice at some workplaces of sharing employer-provided transportation such as ride-share vans or shuttle vehicles;
  • Frequent contact with other unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk individuals in community settings in areas where there is elevated community transmission; and
  • Communal housing or living quarters onboard vessels with other unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk individuals.

In these types of higher-risk workplaces – which include manufacturing, meat and poultry processing, high-volume retail and grocery, and seafood processing – this Appendix provides best practices to protect unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers. Please note that these recommendations are in addition to those in the general precautions described above, including isolation of infected or possibly infected workers, and other precautions.

In all higher-risk workplaces where there are unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers:

• Stagger break times in these generally high-population workplaces, or provide temporary break areas and restrooms to avoid groups of unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers congregating during breaks. Unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers should maintain at least 6 feet of distance from others at all times, including on breaks.
• Stagger workers' arrival and departure times to avoid congregations of unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk in parking areas, locker rooms, and near time clocks.
• Provide visual cues (e.g., floor markings, signs) as a reminder to maintain physical distancing.
• Implement strategies (tailored to your workplace) to improve ventilation that protects workers as outlined in CDC's Ventilation in Buildings and in the OSHA Alert: COVID-19 Guidance on Ventilation in the Workplace.

In workplaces (or well-defined work areas) with processing or assembly lines where there are unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers:

• Working on food processing or assembly lines can result in virus exposure because these workplaces have often been designed for a number of workers to stand next to or across from each other to maximize productivity. Proper spacing of unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers (or if not possible, appropriate use of barriers) can help reduce the risks for such workers.

In retail workplaces (or well-defined work areas within retail) where there are unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers:

• Suggest masks for unvaccinated (or unknown-status) customers and other visitors.
• Consider means for physical distancing from other people who are not known to be fully vaccinated. If distancing is not possible, consider the use of barriers between work stations used by unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers and the locations customers will stand, with pass-through openings at the bottom, if possible.
• Move the electronic payment terminal/credit card reader farther away from any unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers in order to increase the distance between customers and such workers, if possible.
• Shift primary stocking activities of unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers to off-peak or after hours when possible to reduce contact between unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers and customers.

Unvaccinated and otherwise at-risk workers are also at risk when traveling to and from work in employer-provided buses and vans.

• Notify unvaccinated and otherwise at-risk workers of this risk and, to the extent feasible, help them limit the number of such workers in one vehicle.
• Make sure all unvaccinated and otherwise at-risk workers sharing a vehicle are wearing appropriate face coverings.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

I am expediting the answer to this question in light of the new guidance issued by the CDC on 5/13 (stating that people two weeks past their final vaccination can relax on wearing masks)[1], because I foresee more situations like this are going to arise.[2]

The short answer to the member's question is: yes, your mail carrier should provide service in a manner compliant with USPS delivery standards, while following the requirements of current executive orders and your library's safety plan.

Further, based on the delivery standards in various postal handbooks,[3]  I think you indeed may have "a leg to stand on" in pressing the matter.

That said, when it comes to contract service providers or vendors--even the USPS--refusing to abide by your library's policy and, instead, altering a long-established mode of service, the only recourse (unless there is a service contract in play[4]) is to do what you have done: take up the issue with their employer.

So, what more can the member do?

This question gave me a chance to do a little digging, and I was not surprised to see that the USPS  has been dealing with this type of issue for a year now[5].

The pandemic has thrown curveball after curveball at the USPS.  This onslaught has resulted in a series of temporary guidance and local union contract modifications being layered on top of the already complex web of regulations and union contracts governing the delivery of the US mail.

In other words, the "legs" supporting the case for safe and compliant delivery in this case might be tangled...making identifying the applicable rules tough, even for a local supervisor with the union contract at their fingertips. 

If you try to re-visit the issue with the local office, my suggestion is to approach the issue in a spirit of problem-solving, focused on how the library can get the "actual delivery" it needs, while keeping the postal carrier safe and the library compliant with its own policy.

The Postal Service, the United Postal Workers Union (the APWU[6]) and the National Association of Letter Carriers" (or "NALC") support the use of acknowledged safety measures. 

In December, 2020, the President of the NALC wrote to the union's membership[7]:

Today, over 14,000 postal employees are under quarantine from the virus. Well over 66,000 previously quarantined postal employees have been cleared and returned to work. About 5300 of the currently quarantined postal employees have tested positive for the virus, and another 1800 plus are presumed to be positive. Almost 16,000 postal employees who tested positive in the past have recovered and returned to work. Of all these numbers, about thirty percent are letter carriers. Sadly, 105 active postal employees have passed away from the virus, including 22 city letter carriers. We have been notified of 6 retired members who have passed away from the virus as well.

The heroic work you do each day delivering the nation’s mail is of great importance to our economy, to our health, and through the election season during a pandemic, to our democracy. As you continue this important work, please also continue to take every precaution regarding social distancing and face coverings. Please do all that you can to protect yourselves, your families, your coworkers, and your customers. Thank you for all that you do. God bless each of you and your families, please stay safe. [emphasis added]

So, what more can the member do here?

While acknowledging it could be a tangled web, working with a post office's local supervisor to truly confirm that the carrier cannot be required to follow your safety plan--in light of the statements by both USPS and the unions--might be a good first step.

I also want to take the opportunity to address the "5/13 development" (the new CDC guidance).

This pandemic isn't over, but we are clearly moving into a new phase...a new phase that will include the state, the various counties and municipalities, and OSHA (whose COVID guidance has been the go-to for workers across the country, including New York State), working to "catch up" with the new guidance from CDC.[8]

What can a library do right now to address this new CDC guidance?  We'll know soon enough...but (this is being finalized May 16, 2021) we don't know right now.

Until we have that new guidance, from a source you trust (confirmed by your county health department, straight from OSHA, or the NY Department of Health), here is a suggested template for addressing the new guidance:

Well, the CDC hit us with a curveball on 5/13 when it issued guidance stating that people at least 2 weeks past their final immunization shot can be without masks.

As of 5/16, the State of New York has not changed its mandates and guidance to incorporate this guideline.  In addition, OSHA, from which many draw their safety practices, has not changed its guidance yet.

Therefore: for now, the [NAME] Library's Safety Plan is unchanged.  Please continue to wear masks as before, regardless of vaccination status.  Further, please continue to use social distancing when required, and continue with our established wipe-down procedures.

We are all ready for a time when we can come to work with less restrictions.  We expect updated guidance from the State soon, and we will amend our Safety Plan when it is appropriate to do so.

Until then, please keep following the Plan, and carry on.

Thanks for all you do.

Overall, here is my suggested order of priorities for board and library employees working to provide critical services in this time of rapid change:

• Safety first (including your safety)
• Also: People first (starting with people's safety, which is both physical and emotional well-being)
• Routinely check the applicable requirements (designate a person to do this daily)
• As needed, update your Safety Plan
• When enforcing a policy, to the greatest extent possible, work with a buddy
• Boards and directors: stay nimble

We're getting there.

More soon....

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

First: thank you very much for your kind words and feedback.  Both are very appreciated, and I encourage users of the service to keep a dialogue going--the service is only as good as the questions and input that inspire it.

Second, just to recap my advice from the November, 2020 "Ask the Lawyer" referenced by the member, it boiled down to:

"With no clear bucket and no clear requirements, at this point, I have to answer that retention of proof of screening should be permanent."

Time, as they say, has marched on, and as the member states, the State Archives has offered some additional guidance on this topic.

Here's where I am at: I have reviewed the additional information referenced by the member, and despite that input, I am just not confident that the time periods in LGS-792 "c" and "d" are the right fit for records showing a public library's routine use of employee screening as part of their Safety Plan,[1] and I continued to advise that retention be permanent (at least for now).

Here are the three reasons for my continued hesitation:

Reason 1: LGS-1 792a-f have a clear application, and I am not certain a pandemic response is quite it

I appreciate that 792c, which is part of the "Public Health" section of the LGS-1, applies to a "positive report" of a screening, and 792d is for a "negative report of individual screened."

However, as the remaining sections of 792 show, 792 applies to screenings conducted for public health initiatives that also (might) use: summary reports, master indices of "participants," informed consent forms, and a log used to compile data extracted from the screen.  

Logs, data crunching, and "informed consent" are all part of a public health agency's toolbox for public health initiatives in response to concerns such as the transmission and impact of a dangerous virus like COVID-19.

But unlike the majority of such initiatives, which tackle challenges such as STD's, tuberculosis, and cancer, employee health screenings for COVID-19 symptoms are part of a much larger effort conducted as part of an emergency response.

Reason 2: Emergency response records under the LGS-1

Because of the "emergency response" aspect discussed above, when I first reviewed the original question, I considered the applicability of LGS-1 802 ("public health incident files") which pertains to "records related to public health emergencies, communicable disease occurrences, and epidemics." 

Under 802 (also referenced in the State Archive's resource linked by the member), the retention period for "[s]urveillance, investigation, and response records" created in response to an epidemic is THREE YEARS "after [the] outbreak has abated."

Are a public library's employee health screenings "surveillance, investigation, and response records" during a "public health incident?"  Since employers are required to report the names of employees who screen positive to their local health department--who then engage in contract tracing and outreach--I believe they could be, which debatably makes the retention period of employee screenings (positive or negative) three years.

However, even three years doesn't sit right with me.  Here is why:

Reason 3: The other reasons to keep the records

My original answer went a little beyond the scope of required retention, addressing not only the precise retention period that might be required by the NY Arts & Cultural Affairs Law,[2]  but also, the other factors a public library might wish to consider when determining how long to retain the records of employee screenings.[3]

These "other factors" include legal claims based on alleged non-compliance with required pandemic procedures, some of which could underlie personal injury claims, alleged civil rights violations or even a contract violation (which has a six-year statute of limitations).[4]

In the body of New York case law involving personal injury, civil rights, and contract claims against public libraries, one can see an interesting pattern: sometimes public libraries are treated as government agencies, and sometimes, they are not.[5]  This is why public libraries are often required by their municipality to have their own insurance.  This also means that while they might be held to the document retention standards of municipal agencies, sometimes, they won't have the legal protections of one.

My concern was--and strongly remains--that a process of purging documents that could demonstrate use of and adherence to screening programs will only disadvantage a library, even if the lost record was properly disposed of under the LGS-1.[6]  There are reasons beyond required retention to keep those records.  And without a clear directive on retention, I think it is best that a library keep a close hold on them.

In closing

I am sure no public library that documents input from State Archives about the applicable retention period and then purges negative screens after 1 year will be met with a penalty from the State. 

But as you can see in "Reason 3," the State is not my primary concern. 

With the benefit of 5 additional months since my original answer, I will take advantage of this chance to refine it to revise my above-quoted statement and change it to:

"Even when we get clear requirements, I have to answer that retention of proof of screening should be permanent, or at least until your library's attorney has determined that any advantage to the library created by retention is past, and your library has determined they are of no historical significance."

Thank you very much to the member for giving me the opportunity to re-visit this issue and to offer this updated (and hopefully improved) guidance.  I am sorry to cause you more use of storage room, but gratified to have the chance to offer this analysis!

Afternote:  Below are the relevant excerpts from LGS-1 792 and 802:

792 CO2 508, MU1 472, MI1 409

Results of screening programs, except lead poisoning

a          Summary reports on screening results: RETENTION: PERMANENT

b          Master index or listing of participants: RETENTION: 50 years

c          Positive report of individual screened, including statement of consent or participation   and authorization for release of information: RETENTION: 6 years, or 3 years after    individual attains age 18, whichever is longer

d          Negative report of individual screened, including statement of consent or participation   and authorization for release of information: RETENTION: 1 year

e          Log or other working record of screening and testing, used to compile statistics and other      data: RETENTION: 1 year

f           Anonymous H.I.V. test results and related records: RETENTION: 7 years

NOTE: Identifiable H.I.V. related records are covered by item nos. 743 and 745, and related laboratory records are covered by items in the Laboratory subsection.

802

Public health incident files, including records related to public health emergencies, communicable disease occurrences, and epidemics

a          Surveillance, investigation, and response records: RETENTION: 3 years after outbreak          has abated

...

NOTE: Appraise these records for historical significance prior to disposition. Records of unusual disease occurrences or epidemics 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

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

Earlier this week I was having a conversation with Brian, one of my paralegals, about the challenges we—our office and our clients—are facing due to the pandemic.  The conversation ranged from the personal (Brian is a musician whose band hasn't been able to play; my father-in-law is in the hospital and we can't go see him), to the professional (how to handle a contract breached because people can’t gather to do the work).  We concluded, in a very non-scientific way, that everything—whether it used to be easy, or was only a little bit difficult—is now "at least 30% harder" than before.^[1]

On the flip side, later that day, I spoke via Zoom with a friend about how the increased reliance on Zoom, FB Live, and other virtual fora has done wonders for democracy.  "People are going to meetings they could never get to before," said my friend. "People who would never have had time to get to City Hall, or would have faced actual physical barriers to getting in a building,^[2] are now able to attend."  And I optimistically thought: Cool...one thing that isn't 30% harder.

But these current times are not kind to optimists, and this question shows that, for some, even the Zoom-ification of democracy might make life at least 30% harder. 

And with that harsh reality established, let's take a look at the legal considerations of this question.

I.  Meetings during COVID

As "Ask the Lawyer" has addressed a few times^[3] since the onset of NY's response to the pandemic,^[4] chartered libraries are obligated to conduct their board meetings in compliance with the "Open Meetings Law (the “OML”). When New York went into social-distancing mode, the requirements of that law were modified by Executive Order to allow people to attend remotely, or through a blend of in-person and remote solutions.^[5]

The New York Committee on Open Government (the "COOG") addressed some of the practical considerations of these modifications in guidance issued on August 20, 2020.  In that opinion, the COOG stated that if a body subject to the OML resumed meeting in person while the executive orders allowing the modifications were effective, a remote attendance alternative must be provided.^[6]  As of this writing, modification is good through February 26, 2021.

II.  Attendance as a Trustee During COVID

The Executive Orders and COOG guidance clearly require enabling attendance through remote measures.  What the executive orders and COOG^[7] guidance are silent on is the scenario posed by the member: if a library board and community have transitioned to meeting 100% virtually, and one trustee, due to the technology, isn't able to attend, is the board able to address that under the law?^[8]

I have found no guidance precisely on point, but below is my legal analysis, and what I hope will be helpful guidance.

III.  Analysis

Library trustee service is governed by the laws of New York and a library's enabling legislation, charter, bylaws, and policies (in that order).  Aside from customized provisions in a charter, bylaws or policy, the law has two means of addressing serial trustee absence:

Means #1: "Unexcused Absence"

Per Section 226(4) of the Education Law,^[9] trustees who are absent for three consecutive meetings without a "satisfactory excuse" for missing the meeting are "deemed to have resigned."  That is why, when a trustee lets a board know that they are unable to attend a meeting (virtual or otherwise), and they don’t show up, they are noted on the minutes as "excused," since to do otherwise could put the trustee on a path of resignation-by-law.^[10]

Many NY library bylaws have this language in them, but it is not required...since it's in the law.  But what isn't in the law is what a board can regard as a "satisfactory" excuse. Is the excuse of a trustee who can't attend remotely, due entirely to technology, "acceptable"?  Only a board can say.  In a very rural community, it might be.  In a highly wired urban area with free wi-fi, where a trustee could perhaps even borrow some library technology to attend the meeting, it might not. So long as the reason is not discriminatory,^[11] and not contrary to the bylaws or being unfairly applied, a board has some discretion in what type of reason they are "satisfied" by.

But I can say this: if the absences aren't noted as "unexcused" on the board minutes, a board should not contemplate this as a basis for implied resignation, since the law is clear that this must be based on absence that is unexcused.

Means #2: "Neglect of Duty"

The other statutory basis for removal of a trustee is found in Section 226 (8) of the Education Law: "Removals and Suspensions,” which states that a board may:

“Remove or suspend from office by a vote of a majority of the entire board any trustee, officer or employee engaged under special contract, on examination and due proof of the truth of a written complaint by any trustee, of misconduct, incapacity or neglect of duty; provided, that at least one week’s previous notice of the proposed action shall have been given to the accused and to each trustee."

As you can see, this section (a provision often replicated in library bylaws) creates a more intricate process than Section 226(4): it requires a written complaint, advance notice, and a majority vote of trustees to confirm a removal. 

To use this provision to address nothing more than repeated absence due to technical issues is probably overkill, unless the board finds that the mounting excuses—while perhaps initially acceptable—are causing real harm to the library or the operations of the board.  Before resorting to this step, it is always good for a board president or other leader to have a conversation with a board member and ask if they would like to offer their resignation (for some, this request may come as a relief).^[12]

That said, a "neglect of duty" removal doesn't have to be hostile.  It can simply state that a trustee has failed to attend X number of meetings, has been unable to fulfill their duty as a trustee, and that to ensure the board has the benefit of a fully participating body, the board must consider removal. Give proper notice of the “complaint,” make sure the trustee has a chance to be heard, and vote.

IV.  Guidance

So: Is removal an option?

Yes, removal is an option, but as can be seen, when considering such removal, a board should pay close attention to the documentation that it is basing its decision upon.

I am very glad the member who submitted this question is being so thoughtful about this.  It is clear from the law, the pandemic-related Executive Orders, and the COOG guidance, that it is the public policy of the State of New York to encourage attendance and access to library trustee meetings, even during difficult times. 

While trustees have a different set of rights and obligations than the general public, an effort to orchestrate meetings to be free of pandemic-created impediments to trustee participation is clearly within the spirit, if not the letter of the law. To that end, if a library is open and if it has a Safety Plan that could allow a capacity-limited physical component of a virtual board meeting (perhaps set up in the room where the trustees used to meet, if possible under the Safety Plan), it is worth considering allowing trustees to attend in that manner—even if the rest of the trustees appear virtually. 

But to be clear: that is not what the law requires.  And if everything feels at least 30% harder these days, every library needs every trustee to be giving 100%.  So, if steps need to be taken to ensure a board has its full capacity of engaged trustees, just double-check your bylaws and documentation, and do what's best for the library.

Thanks for a difficult but very important question.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

Here's something positive and affirming I can say: it's possible that the members expressing different opinions on the member directors' list are actually all correct.

That’s because, while I can't give one "clear yes or no answer" to this question, I can give five...five answers based on different scenarios about the facts "before an employee comes to work," including their symptoms, COVID exposure, and the safety measures needed to reduce the risk of COVID transmission in their workplace.

Here the five scenarios are:

Scenario 1

Yes, an employer must (and therefore, can) require a COVID test before an employee returns to work,[1] if the employee reports symptoms as part of routine screening.[2]

Scenario 2

Yes, an employer must (and therefore, can) require a COVID test before an employee returns to work, if an employee is symptomatic upon arrival at work or becomes sick with COVID-19 symptoms while at the workplace, absent close or proximate contact with a person with COVID-19.[3]

Scenario 3

No, an employer does not have to, and has no basis to, require a negative COVID test before an employee comes to work, if the employee is working 100% remotely at home or in a location not at all controlled or at the direction of the employer.[4]

Scenario 4

No, an employer may not require a negative COVID test before an employee comes to work, IF the employee has a medical basis to not be tested; without a negative test, however, if certain screening factors were tripped (such as those in item 2, above) the employer will have to enforce other prescribed measures to comply with state requirements and reduce the risk of transmission within the workplace, such as a mandatory quarantine.[5]

Scenario 5

Yes, an employer can require a negative COVID test before an employee comes to work, if an established safety plan based on applicable OHSA guidance and the employee's job duties warrant that level of caution.[6]

Conclusion

I am not surprised you were unable to find a clear answer from a single reliable source, as these five scenario-based answers had to be cobbled together from two separate documents from the New York State Department of Health, which when combined, require employers to:

"Implement mandatory health screening assessment (e.g. questionnaire, temperature check) before employees begin work each day and for essential visitors, asking about (1) COVID-19 symptoms in past 14 days, (2) positive COVID-19 test in past 14 days, and/or (3) close contact[7] with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 case in past 14 days. Assessment responses must be reviewed every day and such review must be documented."

AND

"An individual who screens positive for COVID-19 symptoms must not be allowed to enter the office and must be sent home with instructions to contact their healthcare provider for assessment and testing." [emphasis added]

AND

"If an employee tests positive for COVID-19, regardless of whether the employee is symptomatic or asymptomatic, the employee may return to work upon completing at least 10 days of isolation from the onset of symptoms or 10 days of isolation after the first positive test if they remain asymptomatic."

AND

"If an employee has had close or proximate contact with a person with COVID-19 for a prolonged period of time AND is experiencing COVID-19 related symptoms, the employee may return to work upon completing at least 10 days of isolation from the onset of symptoms."

AND

"If an employee has had close or proximate contact with a person with COVID-19 for a prolonged period of time AND is not experiencing COVID-19 related symptoms, the employee may return to work upon completing 14 days of self-quarantine."

AND

"If an employee is symptomatic upon arrival at work or becomes sick with COVID-19 symptoms while at the workplace, absent close or proximate contact with a person with COVID-19, the employee must be separated and sent home immediately and may return to work upon completing at least 10 days of isolation from the onset of symptoms OR upon receipt of a negative COVID-19 test result." [emphasis added]."

And there you have it. I am not sure if this will make things clearer, but hopefully I have added some clarity to the uncertainty. 

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 ANSWER IS NOT FOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES***^[1]

Here is what else you can do:

Any private association library currently^[2] operating in the State of New York is required^[3] to have a pandemic Safety Plan.

A library’s pandemic Safety Plan is not set in stone; it should be a living document that evolves as the library’s operations and our overall knowledge about COVID transmission change.

With that in mind, revising its Safety Plan to ensure the physical layout of its curbside operations could be a good solution to this member’s situation.^[4]

Here are some possible revisions to accomplish this:

• Modify the Safety Plan so external seating in close proximity to all entrances/exits and curbside sites is removed or roped off for all but emergency or ADA use; or
• Modify the safety plan so the bench is within a perimeter that is barred for use by the public during business hours; or
• Modify the Safety Plan to enhance the size of pick-up zones where only employees and those quickly picking up curbside service may enter, and set up barriers (tables, Plexiglass, cones, bollards) to emphasize the increased size of the zone; and
• For any solution: use new signage with clear language and graphics to emphasize any changes or updates to the Plan, so people can adhere to the new rules.

NOTE: As with any adoption or revision of a Safety Plan, to the greatest extent possible, check in with your local Department of Health (I appreciate that in some places, the Department of Health may be so overwhelmed that this "check-in" is impossible).

Since it is best to have your library board "on board" with the library's Safety Plan, and any changes to it, below is a proposed resolution for adopting such a change:^[5]

BE IT RESOLVED, that to ensure the Library's Safety Plan is evolving as our information, operations, and needs evolve, the board adopts the attached [date] version of the Safety Plan, effective [date/immediately].

Now, all that said, I know there could still be a few hiccups (plans on paper often get shredded by reality).  Here is the obvious “hiccup” I see, and a proposed way to address it:

If the "difficult" patron suddenly discovers that the bench they like to use and socialize from is suddenly not there/unavailable, and they have a strongly negative reaction—yelling abuse, or even being physically violent—that is when to call law enforcement, and of course to invoke your Code of Conduct and consider barring or suspending them from the library, as circumstances warrant. 

But hopefully, with some modifications to the Safety Plan, and good communication of the changes, this concern can be resolved in a way that not only addresses this specific issue, but deters any other visitor who could pose such a threat.

Please let us know^[6] if this approach proves effective.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

Thank you for this careful and thoughtful question.  As we rush to migrate education to online, the small details can get overlooked.  As the member writes, information that used to be safeguarded in physical files or with separate passwords is increasingly accessible via a "one-stop shop."

Depending on the type of information involved, any number of ethical, privacy, and legal concerns can be impacted.

In this question, the member focuses on two types of information: library records, and FERPA-protected "education records."

For library records, there is an overlap of legal concerns—an overlap that was thoroughly discussed in the 5/6/19 answer the member cites.  In that reply, we established that depending on how a school/school library is set up, parent/guardian access to this information might be allowed--but it’s a question that should never be left to chance (it should always be answered by a school’s FERPA and library privileges policies).

To that answer, and considering the spirit of the times, I'd simply add: any librarian out there, operating in elementary and secondary education, should be lauded when they raise privacy concerns.  Librarians should work with IT departments and procurement professionals to ensure data management and automation enable the separately governed access to a student's library records.  Even when access is legally allowed by a system, it is still good to emphasize the privacy of library records.

Here are several examples of how this can be done:

• Including privacy considerations in “Requests for Proposals” (RFP’s) and quotes for automation and other data management software that will hold library or student records;
• Training both library and IT staff to keep the division of different types of records with different access parameters at top of mind (“Remember, library records aren’t just protected by FERPA and ED 2-d”);
• Ensuring that release and parental permission forms distinguish between and properly govern access to different types of records;
• When making quick changes based on pandemic exigencies,^[1] ensuring at least one person is tasked with assessing if the implementation conforms with applicable institutional ethics, policies, and privacy regulations.
• Using deliberate awareness tools, such as a pop-up window that appears prior to enabling access to library files, saying "Student library records are confidential under state law.  Only properly authorized parties should view these records," is a good way to distinguish access to library information from other education records.^[2]

For any educator reading this and thinking “Uh-oh,” if the horse is out of the barn, it is never too late to adopt some retroactive corrections.  When parental access is as plenary as the member describes, if there is a confirmed issue (such as access to one student’s enrollment records leading to access to all students’ enrollment records^[3]) working with IT to address the specific utility hosting that information, and how it can be further locked down, is the only solution.

There will be times when addressing an issue like the ones raised by the member is simply not within the authority of the person concerned.  A concerned librarian or educator might even find themselves rebuffed when they try to ring the alarm! When that happens, it is time to kick it upstairs.  Each school should have a FERPA officer, and at least one senior administrator whose role is associated with enforcing a code of ethics or policies on privacy.  Concerns of this type are all appropriate to direct to such an administrator.

No one engineers a FERPA or privacy violation on purpose, but unwitting violations can happen when the learning environment has to change fast.  Being alert and ready to identify and correct concerns as soon as they emerge is critical.  Thanks for a solid question that shows how it's done.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

This "Ask the Lawyer" answer is being composed on December 28...that cold, snowy time between Christmas and New Year's, when the courts (even during non-COVID times) are slow, staff are on holiday, and lawyers sit around thinking about catching up on filing, or even (gasp) leaving the office early to shovel, or take their kids sledding.

This quiet, contemplative "winter lull" is the perfect time to consider questions about investments held by not-for-profits.  Why it that?  Because the answer must—no matter how carefully edited, designed, and written for clarity—be extensive, and therefore long.

But that's okay, because the deep mid-winter is the time for stories.  So, grab a mug of cocoa, snuggle into a blanket, and get ready to read:

Prudence: Tale of Library Investments

Chapter 1: Extra Money

It was a cold day, but then again, in New York, most winter days are.  The Library checked its old boiler system and found that, despite certain pangs, it was going to keep the heat running that day.  This was good, since even with the staff offering only services curbside, the Library's inhabitants would be happier if they didn't have to wear fingerless gloves while using the computers.

Assured that its occupants would be warm, the Library thought about an exciting new development: money.  Based on what it heard during the Zoom board meeting last night, due to some donations, the Library had some to spare.

This notion of "spare" money was new to the Library.  From its founding in 1885 through to the present, it couldn't recall having too much extra.  And even when the bank account got ahead, the Library found a way to spend it down: a new wing, a ramp, and one memorable year, a completely new roof.

The Library sat on its strong, stone foundation and recalled the discussion of the board.  "We can start an endowment!" said one.  "No, we can just set it aside," said another.  "We must invest it," said a third.  "Can we do that?" asked another. And finally: "We must research what to do," said the board chair, sounding prudent and wise and thoughtful. 

And everyone had nodded or put their thumb up in agreement, as people in Zoom meetings are wont to do, before putting up their thumbs again to adjourn.

Chapter 2: Research

The Library was still recalling the ins-and-outs of the meeting (no new carpet this year; but a slight raise for the Director, who had been "a rock," according to the chair of the board), when it recalled what the board had committed to do about the "spare" money: research. 

Hey, the Library thought, I can do that.  And, firing up the internet on a computer in the corner,^[1] it accessed Lexis-Nexis to see what it could do.

When the Senior Clerk showed up for work the next day, she found this, sitting on the printer:

To the Board:

I am so pleased the library has acquired some spare money at a time when I do not need repairs, new shelving, or capital improvements!

While you might want to think about having the boiler replaced, I have taken the liberty to research some options for investing this windfall.

First, it appears that a not-for-profit corporation like this library should have an "investment committee."  Information on that is here: https://www.charitiesnys.com/pdfs/sympguidance.pdf

Second, it seems that if the library is to have any endowment or investments, it should have a policy about the "prudent" management of them.  The New York Attorney General's guidance on that is found here: https://www.charitiesnys.com/pdfs/mifa-funds.pdf

Third, I can confirm that while an association library like me doesn't have to follow the "rules" (which are actually laws) regarding investments that public libraries do, those rules are regarded as a nice model to follow.  The Comptroller's guidance on those rules is here: https://www.osc.state.ny.us/files/local-government/publications/pdf/investingpublicfunds.pdf

Fourth, since the Comptroller's restrictions on certain investments don't apply to us, if we are "prudent," adopt a solid investment policy, and follow it, we can invest in local initiatives, publicly held companies, and even "socially responsible investing."  Some good commentary on that is here: http://www.nysl.nysed.gov/libdev/trustees/handbook/chapter11.htm

Fifth, if a contemplated investment is local, we must take particular care to document that all decisions regarding it comply with our "Conflict of Interest" policy (you know how things are in a small town).

Finally, we have to consider how this looks on our annual fiscal reporting, since we are a recognized charity under the Internal Revenue Code (what we refer to as our "501(c)(3)" status), and must file a form "990" disclosing how much we have in our investments.  What that boils down to is: if people look us up at https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/tax-exempt-organization-search, will we look like responsible investors?

And that's it.  I was happy to help with the research.  In return, it would be great if you would consider creating an ad hoc committee to investigate some preventative maintenance on my boiler.  Oh, and when you re-point my masonry, be sure you use a contractor who will select the right mortar.^[2]

Thanks and good wishes,

Your Library (Building)

Chapter 3: Finding a New Senior Clerk

They've dealt with Safety Plans.  They've risen to the occasion with curbside.  They've found a way to do readings and workshops and community events online.  But they might draw the line at working in a sentient (some would say haunted) building that does its own not-for-profit management research.

THE END

Thank you for indulging my taste for a little end-of-2020 fiction!  Hopefully, the Library's research guides you to the right places for legal compliance when making investment decisions. 

My final guidance on this?  To be safe,^[3] turn off the computers at night.  Then, to move forward with creating an endowment^[4] or making an investment like the one described in the question:

• amend your library's bylaws to create an investment committee;
• have the investment committee use the linked guidance (along with a lawyer) to develop an investment policy;
• confirm the details of the policy and method of accounting for investment revenue with your library's accountant;
• if your library places a high priority on “socially responsible investment,”^[5] make sure those parameters are in the policy;
• apply the standards in the policy to make a decision;
• when an investment is local, pay close attention to the parameters for investing and your library's policy for managing conflicts of interest; and
• Record every step in the board minutes.

And that is how your association library can invest in a "bank, or a stock, share of a public company."

I wish you many happy returns on your investments! 

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

My favorite DJ-related story is about how "scratching" a record,[1] as both a musical instrument and an act of composition, evolved in the hip-hop scene of the late 1970's and early 80's.[2]  It is a story of technological innovation, of community culture, and (as all good stories are) controversy.[3]  DJ's, like all contributing figures to culture, make for compelling scholarship.  So I am not surprised to see this question about audio-visual content portraying a DJ on a library archive.

The short answer is: sure, it could be a violation; but there are five things that can keep it on the right side of the law—or at least mitigate the risk if there is an unintentional violation.

Here are those five "things":

First thing

Is the posted video part of a well-developed and organized collection or archive?

If "yes," go on.

Second thing

Does the metadata on the unique video reflect that it is part of a well-developed and organized collection?

If "yes," go on.

Third thing

Is the music part of a recording of an event, or is the music a separate track with all other ambient sound (the crowd, street noise, the DJ talking over the music) removed (or never there)?

Even if "no" go on, but have the next two really, really tight.

Fourth thing

Has your library[4] conducted and documented[5] a "fair use" analysis[6]  of its posting of this particular content, and to the best of its ability, reflected accurate ownership of the item in the metadata and item information on the archive?

If “yes,” go on.

Fifth thing

Does your library have a "notice and takedown" contact point posted on its website, so anyone who believes the content is an infringement can complain, AND has your library registered[7] for "safe harbor" under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act?[8]

If "yes," DJ on!

Why do I have to do the "5-step hustle" to answer what seems like a simple (if compound) question?  Because how and why content is used can transform "infringing use" to non-infringing "fair use."  For a component of a scholarly or historic video archive, this means being able to show that a musical recording incorporated into an audio-visual record is not merely a gratuitous use of the audio content, but rather, a critical element of a work that transcends (and doesn't simply replace) the purpose of the original. 

This is, in some ways, a tall order.  But if you follow steps "1" through "4" above, you significantly increase your likelihood of getting it right. And as for step 5: the DMCA has been in the news, recently, as a part of the national info-tech infrastructure that is due for an overhaul.  But for now, it can protect certain kinds of service providers (like search engines, directories, and other information location tools) from liability for third-party infringement, and it is an essential part of any information database's copyright compliance toolkit.

Thank you for a good question.

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

Since the onset of the pandemic, we have had two questions about the impact of Executive Orders on the Open Meetings Law.

The first question, back in March 2020 (remember March 2020?  Ugh.), led to this advice:

... the method you select for sharing the meeting in real time (livestreaming, a broadcast) should be accessible to the general public.

Of course, by Fall 2020, we all became experts at these modified proceedings, and were asking refined questions like:

How long does a library (public or association) or a cooperative public library system have to keep the recording of board or committee meetings?

(Answer: until transcribed.)

This brings us to December, 2020.

On December 2, 2020, the Governor issued Executive Order 202.79,[1] continuing the suspension and temporary modification of the Open Meetings Law through January 1, 2021.[2]  So here we are, still meeting under modified circumstances.[3]

Which brings us to the member's question:

[Does] allowing the meeting to be simultaneously on Zoom ... satisfy the requirements of open meetings law even though only one member of the public would be able to be physically present in order to stay under the 10-member cap for small gatherings[?]

Answer: Yes.

Here is why I can answer this question with one-word confidence.

Back in August, 2020 (remember August, 2020?  Slightly less "ugh.") the Executive Director of the State Committee on Open Government, realizing that different areas have different COVID numbers and are facing different Open Meetings Law compliance challenges, wrote in an Advisory Opinion:[4]

...if a public body is convening an essential meeting, the body must ensure that it adheres to social distancing, masking, and any other administration requirements, and if there is any question about whether it is able to maintain a safe space in which to hold an essential open meeting, it must provide a contemporaneous video or audio broadcast such that members of the public who cannot safely attend in person “ha[ve] the ability to view or listen to such proceeding and that such meetings are recorded and later transcribed.”

Further, the Advisory Opinion went on to emphasize that room capacity and safety concerns should not impede public access to an OML-accessible meeting. "[A] public body may not artificially limit attendance at its meetings – to do so would not be consistent with the requirements of the Open Meetings Law."

The solution posed in the question submitted by the member adequately addresses this concern.   By enabling observation and attendance via Zoom, the proceeding will be virtually accessible even though it has been physically convened.  The key is ensuring access at a time of modified operations.

And what do we do when Executive Order 202.72 expires?

We'll see in the New Year!

Thanks for a thoughtful question, I wish you a productive and safe meeting.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

Before attempting to answer this one, my team and I looked to see if anyone else "out there" has tackled this question.

We scoured the usual places (NYS Empire Development's COVID site, Committee on Open Government, NY Archives, NYLA, etc.), but my staff and I didn't find anything right on point. That said, the COVID landscape changes fast, so please let us know if you find anything, and we'll post an update to this answer.

And with that shameless disclaim/plea on the record, here is my answer:

As I read it, the currently-governing Executive Order[1] requires an entity subject to the Open Meetings Law to keep the recordings until they have been transcribed—not just until the minutes have been created.

Here is my reasoning: Executive Order 202.1[2] changed the Open Meetings Law as follows:

...to the extent necessary to permit any public body to meet and take such actions authorized by the law without permitting in public in-person access to meetings and authorizing such meetings to be held remotely by conference call or similar service, provided that the public has the ability to view or listen to such proceeding and that such meetings are recorded and later transcribed. [emphasis added]

Although the normal application of the LGS-1 would allow for the recording to be erased upon creation of the minutes—just as the member points out—the Executive Order is an overlay that super-cedes (or at least, exceeds) normal record-keeping requirements.

I realize this means a library that can't afford to transcribe the recording any time soon will have to keep the audio around.  It's possible that the state, after considering the fiscal reality of the conditions the "later transcribed" condition imposes, may eventually tinker with the requirement, perhaps simply insisting the audio be retained for a certain time after the minutes are generated.[3]

I am leaning on the side of retention, and not taking the easy way out by swapping it out for creating minutes, because access to the process, in all its glory, is the default purpose of the law.  Further, Committee on Open Government Advisory Opinion has stated that while masks and social distancing remain requirements, entities subject to the Open Meetings Law must be making the proceedings contemporaneously available via audio or video[4].  So with all that, I have to err on the side of retention, access, and transparency.

Fortunately, digital sound file storage is not too costly these days.[5]

Thank you for a thoughtful question.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

Records management is an art formed by the crossroads of life, law, and data.^[1]

As soon as we saw that the state's "Template Safety Plan" required completion of employee health screening, the records management implications were clear. In fact, "Ask the Lawyer" has alluded to this very concern before.^[2]  But the member's questions give us a really good focal point.

Here is some background, and then we'll tackle the member's questions:

As librarians know better than most people, information often falls into a variety of "buckets."

One of the biggest "buckets" of records that may sound familiar is the bucket labelled "evidence."  Most people know that when you leave a paper trail, it can (with many exceptions) be used for—or against—you in court.  In the employee data arena, common uses of such evidence are labor law and civil rights claims.

Another big bucket is "health care records" pertaining to individual people.  This type of information is protected by a complex array of state and federal law, rules, and regulations, and the obligations related to it change based on who is retaining them.  In the case of employers, the restrictions are generally rigid.

And of course, there are "municipal records" and "business records" both of which have a vast array of sub-classes and categories, depending on the municipality or the business (I don't know who has it worse, the records management office for a large city, or the records management office for an insurance company^[3]).  Municipal employers are always having to balance transparency with accountability, sorting disclosable^[4] data from data restricted due to employee privacy.

Very often, the records in one "bucket" also belong in another, which swaps the bucket analogy for your classic Venn Diagram.

The member's question puts us squarely in a Venn Diagram comprised of sets (buckets) of:

• Employee personnel file records;
• Employee health-related records;
• Compliance records;
• [Possible] municipal records
• [Possible] evidence.

Because of the different definitions and regulations defining and restricting the information in the buckets, it is critical to know what data you're keeping.  For instance, while employers are allowed to keep CONFIDENTIAL records related to employee health, COVID screening records are not supposed to contain such information—only the fact that a person was screened, and either made it through, or was denied access to the work site due to a screening factor.^[5]

And with that....

How long should these records be kept? Two weeks? Two months? Forever?

Records showing that COVID screening and follow-up action^[6] is being done as required, with no employee-specific information (like an employee's name coupled with their temperature, symptoms, or a positive diagnosis) included^[7], is at the very least a compliance-related record, could be evidence in a lawsuit, and is (debatably) a municipal record.  This means it could be used to show compliance (or lack thereof), to prove liability (or lack thereof), and/or may be subject to FOIL (more on that in a moment).

But despite all that overlap, I can find no clear legal requirement to retain screening data.  The state's Executive Orders and guidance are silent on this, except for some areas where we can extrapolate retention (for instance, records kept for contact tracing must obviously be kept at least three weeks, since the whole point is timely notification within the window of exposure and possible illness).

Because I despise lawyering from a vacuum (I'd almost rather have bad guidance than no guidance) to see if any input could be gleaned from it, I took a long, hard look at the LGS-1^[8], the "Local Government Schedule" of the New York Archives, which is the go-to text for questions related to municipal records retention.  

Clocking in at over 400 pages, this document, which went into effect in August, 2020, lists just about every type of municipal record imaginable...except it doesn't list "Executive Order Compliance," or any other category I felt safe basing a reply to this question on.

With no clear bucket and no clear requirements, at this point, I have to answer that retention of proof of screening should be permanent.

And, not to complicate matters, but for municipal or school district public libraries, are these records, or portions thereof, subject to FOIL?

While I imagine most of the readers who have hung on this deep into this answer already know it, I will mention: "FOIL" is New York's "Freedom of Information Law," which requires government agencies to disclose most records^[9] related to their operations.

It is well-known that an association library is not subject to FOIL; on the flip side, it is generally held that a public library, which is established by government and "belong[s] to the public" [Education Law, §253(2)] is subject to the Freedom of Information Law. 

So, is the trove of information listed by the member subject to FOIL?  It's highly likely.

Why?

This question by the member brings us full circle on our buckets. While employee health records are most certainly exempt from disclosure under FOIL^[10], the impersonal operational records of a FOIL-able library that is simply ensuring screening is happening might not be.

Therefore, a library that knows it is subject to FOIL should be ready to asses if it has to disclose its safety plan compliance records upon request.  However, in no event should such disclosure include employee names and related health information (disclosing a record with the name of the person or team in charge of monitoring compliance would be fine).

And there (complexities and all) you have it.

Thanks for a good records management-gymnastics-inducing question.

APPENDIX

From New York's "Interim COVID-19 Guidance for Curbside and In-Store Pickup Retail Business Activities"; record-generation triggers are highlighted in yellow.

A. Screening and Testing

• Responsible Parties must implement mandatory daily health screening practices.
o Screening practices may be performed remotely (e.g. by telephone or electronic survey), before the employee reports to the retail location, to the extent possible; or may be performed on site.

o Screening should be coordinated to prevent employees from intermingling in close contact with each other prior to completion of the screening.

o At a minimum, screening should be required of all workers and essential visitors (but not customers) and completed using a questionnaire that determines whether the worker or visitor has:

(a) knowingly been in close or proximate contact in the past 14 days with anyone who has tested positive for COVID-19 or who has or had symptoms of COVID-19,

(b) tested positive for COVID-19 in the past 14 days, or
(c) has experienced any symptoms of COVID-19 in the past 14 days.

• According to CDC guidance on “Symptoms of Coronavirus,” the term “symptomatic” includes employees who have the following symptoms or combinations of symptoms: fever, cough, shortness of breath, or at least two of the following symptoms: fever, chills, repeated shaking with chills, muscle pain, headache, sore throat, or new loss of taste or smell. Responsible Parties should require employees to immediately disclose if and when their responses to any of the aforementioned questions changes, such as if they begin to experience symptoms, including during or outside of work hours.

• Daily temperature checks may also be conducted per Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or DOH guidelines. Responsible Parties are prohibited from keeping records of employee health data (e.g. temperature data).
• Responsible Parties must ensure that any personnel performing screening activities, including temperature checks, are appropriately protected from exposure to potentially infectious employees or visitors entering the retail location. Personnel performing screening activities should be trained by employer-identified individuals who are familiar with CDC, DOH, and OSHA protocols.
• Screeners should be provided and use PPE, including at a minimum, a face mask, and may include gloves, a gown, and/or a face shield.
• An employee who screens positive for COVID-19 symptoms should not be allowed to enter the worksite and should be sent home with instructions to contact their healthcare provider for assessment and testing. Responsible parties must immediately notify the local health department and DOH about the suspected case. Responsible parties should provide the employee with information on healthcare and testing resources.
• An employee who has responded that they have had close contact with a person who is confirmed or suspected for COVID-19 may not be allowed to enter the retail location without abiding by the precautions outlined below and the Responsible Parties has documented the employee’s adherence to those precautions.
• Responsible Parties must review all employee and visitor responses collected by the screening process on a daily basis and maintain a record of such review. Responsible Parties must also identify a contact as the party for employees to inform if they later are experiencing COVID-19-related symptoms, as noted in the questionnaire.
• Responsible parties must designate a site safety monitor whose responsibilities include continuous compliance with all aspects of the site safety plan.
• To the extent possible, Responsible Parties should maintain a log of every person, including workers and visitors, who may have close contact with other individuals at the work site or area; excluding deliveries that are performed with appropriate PPE or through contactless means. Log should contain contact information, such that all contacts may be identified, traced and notified in the event an employee is diagnosed with COVID-19. Responsible Parties must cooperate with local health department contact tracing efforts.
• Responsible parties cannot mandate that customers complete a health screen or provide contact information but may encourage customers to do so. Responsible Parties may provide an option for customers to provide contact information so they can be logged and contacted for contact tracing, if necessary.
• Employers and employees should take the following actions related to COVID-19 symptoms and contact:

o If an employee has COVID-19 symptoms AND EITHER tests positive for COVID-19 OR did not receive a test, the employee may only return to work after completing a 14-day self-quarantine. If an employee is critical to the operation or safety of a facility, the Responsible Parties may consult their local health department and the most up-to-date CDC and DOH standards on the minimum number of days to quarantine before an employee is safely able to return to work with additional precautions to mitigate the risk of COVID-19 transmission.

o If an employee does NOT have COVID-19 symptoms BUT tests positive for COVID-19, the employee may only return to work after completing a 14-day self-quarantine. If an employee is critical to the operation or safety of a facility, the Responsible Parties may consult their local health department and the most up-to-date CDC and DOH standards on the minimum number of days to quarantine before an employee is safely able to return to work with additional precautions to mitigate the risk of COVID-19 transmission.

o If an employee has had close contact with a person with COVID-19 for a prolonged period of time AND is symptomatic, the employee should notify the Responsible Parties and follow the above protocol for a positive case.

o If an employee has had close contact with a person with COVID-19 for a prolonged period of time AND is NOT symptomatic, the employee should notify the Responsible Parties and adhere to the following practices prior to and during their work shift, which should be documented by the Responsible Parties:

1.  Regular monitoring: As long as the employee does not have a temperature or symptoms, they should self-monitor under the supervision of their employer’s occupational health program.
2.  Wear a mask: The employee should wear a face mask at all times while in the workplace for 14 days after last exposure.
3. Social distance: Employee should continue social distancing practices, including maintaining, at least, six feet distance from others.
4. Disinfect and clean work spaces: Continue to clean and disinfect all areas such as offices, bathrooms, common areas, and shared electronic equipment routinely.

o If an employee is symptomatic upon arrival at work or becomes sick during the day, the employee must be separated and sent home immediately, following the above protocol for a positive case.

B. Tracing and Tracking

• Responsible Parties must notify the local health department and DOH immediately upon being informed of any positive COVID-19 test result by a worker at their site.
• In the case of an employee, visitor, or customer who interacted at the business testing positive, the Responsible Parties must cooperate with the local health department to trace all contacts in the workplace and notify the health department of all employees logged and visitors/customers (as applicable) who entered the retail location dating back to 48 hours before the employee began experiencing COVID-19 symptoms or tested positive, whichever is earlier, but maintain confidentiality as required by federal and state law and regulations.
• Local health departments will implement monitoring and movement restrictions of infected or exposed persons including home isolation or quarantine.
• Employees who are alerted that they have come into close or proximate contact with a person with COVID-19, and have been alerted via tracing, tracking or other mechanism, are required to self- report to their employer at the time of alert and shall follow all required protocols as if they had been exposed at work.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

At "Ask the Lawyer," we have tackled "yearbook questions" before: in 2018^[1] we addressed patron requests to copy physical yearbooks in a library's collection, and in January of 2020^[2] we addressed using scanned yearbook images to illustrate a commemorative calendar. ^[3]

But I have been waiting for this question for quite some time, and I am sure this scenario has a familiar sound to many readers.

"Yearbook scanning"—the creation of digital versions of yearbooks previously available only in hard copy—has been happening for quite a while now.  However formal or informal such efforts might be, the end result (if made accessible) is a searchable, highly accessible collection of images of people in their formative years^[4], who for whatever reason, might see the increased access to their former images as problematic.

Although we don't know the motivation of the person asking the member to remove their name from a digitized yearbook, this scenario shows the apex of this concern: a request to be removed.

At this "apex," a person can make a simple, single request to be removed.  Or, they can be persistent about it--making multiple requests, calls, letters, etc.^[5]  Or, if they are available, they can make legal arguments.

I can think of several "legal" arguments a person could bring forward to remove their name from a yearbook in the manner described by the member:

• They are a victim of domestic violence trying to elude an abuser.
• They are a victim of stalking trying to elude their stalker.
• They have specific safety concerns based on the general public's easier access to the content.
• They have legally changed their name and identity for personal reasons.
• They have informally changed their name and identity for personal reasons.
• They feel the use of their image is commercial (not likely if the poster is a not-for-profit library that isn't charging for the content).
• The content is defamatory.^[6]
• The content is the result of a crime.
• They have been the victim of identity theft and are attempting to optimize their privacy.^[7]

Of course, asking for the "legal reason" a person is requesting removal from a digital, online yearbook puts the library in the uncomfortable position of having to evaluate the validity of the answer.  Let' not go there just yet; instead, let's take a closer look at the member's question:

If the library that scanned and uploaded the yearbook to the internet received permission from the high school to do so (the yearbook is tagged as In Copyright)^[8] does the student have a reasonable request? [emphasis added]

The member has used a very, very important phrase to frame this question: "a reasonable request."

"Reasonable requests"—that is to say, requests that might not have slam-dunk legal footing, but still might be a good reason for removal—cannot be analyzed in a vacuum.  In this context, to determine if a request is "reasonable," it must be assessed against the backdrop of the hosting institution's mission, the purpose of the digital collection, and the values and ethics governing both.

That is why for libraries, archives, museums, and historical societies digitizing old yearbooks and other content that can impact living, breathing people, I advise every institution adopt a policy that 1) confirms that the goal of a digitization project aligns with the mission of the institution; 2) confirms how the content will be accessed (will it be added to the catalog to be checked out as an e-book, or be openly accessible as an online archive? etc.^[9]; 3) confirms the ethics applicable to the project; and 4) creates an ethics-informed process for raising, evaluating, and acting on any concerns about the content.

For readers out there working in established archives, this ethical framework for selecting, preserving, and enabling access to archival content is already built into your institution's DNA.  However, for many libraries or smaller institutions that are now able to create online collections of easily accessed content through scanning, either to hold on their own servers, or to contribute to a larger initiative--with access unmediated by a library card or on-site access--it may be an area ripe for development. 

For those institutions just arriving at this phase, here is a short sample policy to govern the creation of digital content intended for open access:

Now, with those essential considerations backing us up, here are my thoughts on the member's questions:

A request for removal or redaction of digitized content should be evaluated against the mission and values of the library that created the digital content, the purpose of the digitization project, and the ethics governing the project.

In this case, if the person requested removal without giving a reason aligned with ethics of the library and/or the project, the request should be denied.  On the flip side, if the reason for the request does align with the relevant ethics, it should be redacted or removed.

Here's an easy example of this playing out in the real world:

Every "Code of Ethics" I have seen governing libraries and archives requires that the institution follow the law.  Therefore, if there is a legal reason for removal, it should be done.

Here's a less easy example of this playing out in the real world:

If the request is more vague, like "I just don't want people to be able to find out information about me,"^[11] your institution needs to look at the values and ethics it has adopted.  Does personal autonomy and concern for the privacy of living people get a high priority?  If the answer is "yes", there should be a process for redaction or removal.  If the answer is "no," with more priority placed on the integrity of the material, unless there is a legal reason compelling removal, the answer should be, "Sorry, our role is to preserve and make accessible this record in its original form" (or other language regarding integrity of the records, taken from your library’s Code of Ethics).

Personally, although I don't think my yearbooks have anything to hide, I like the option of being able to remove myself from the record until I am dead.^[12]  But in saying that, I am expressing a value, not a legal right, and value judgments are harder than legal conclusions.  That is why requests not rooted in solid legal reasons benefit from: a) the library having a strong, consistent guide, like a Code of Ethics; b) applying that guide consistently; and c) ensuring the library has the technical ability^[13] to implement your institution's decisions, which are all critical.

Thank you for bearing with me on this answer, I know it is intricate, and perhaps more than you signed on for!  The steps I lay out in this answer are meant to be practical, easy to implement, and designed to help your library document that it is doing its best to balance preservation and access to documents with consideration of privacy and ethics.  That is no simple balancing act, but since requests like the one sent to the member are only likely to increase, it is a good thing to be ready to do.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

There are a few ways a teacher may be able to show the remote-only students a specific video.

First: check the license to the video.  It may expressly authorize that type of use.

If that doesn’t give assurance...

Second: check to see if the school is set up to follow the TEACH Act.^[1]

The TEACH Act is Section 110(2) of the Copyright Act.  It allows for the transmission of certain copyright-protected material by accredited educational institutions under certain conditions, if the school is set up^[2] to follow the law.

For the viewing of videos, those "conditions" are:

• The video shouldn't be a product intended solely for instruction via digital networks (the product should say this if it is);
• The copy used must have been obtained legally;
• You can't show the entire video (but you can show a "reasonable and limited" amount);
• That the video is part of the curriculum;
• That only the students enrolled in the class, and the teacher, are watching;
• That the school itself takes a few steps to guard against infringement.

If these conditions are met, the remote learning can commence!

The TEACH Act was handy before COVID, but these days, it is invaluable.  This is why every school district, accredited private school, college, and university should have a "TEACH Act Policy"—so learning can continue as strongly as possible.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

In the spirit of the season, and the answer I must give, this answer will be a modified version of a scene from Macbeth.

[Cue sounds of wind, rain, and small children trying to line up while thinking about candy and their itchy "Frozen II Elsa" costume.]

ENTER THREE WITCHES

FIRST WITCH: Educator!  I sense thou wouldst put on a show!  And Zoom it to demesnes beyond thy institution!  But if the music is protected by copyright and the school does not have a license to use the music in that manner it will be a violation of the copyright!!!

SECOND WITCH:  And, Educator, know this, as well! The Zoom terms of use state: "Zoom may deny access to the Services to any User who is alleged to infringe another party's copyright!" So be warned, or you be twice-condemned for the foul deed of infringement, by both the copyright's master, and the Powers of Zoom!!!

[Lightning.  Thunder.]

THIRD WITCH:  Ahem.  Of course, you'd have to get caught, first....

[Pause.  The cauldron bubbles.  FIRST WITCH and SECOND WITCH give THIRD WITCH the side-eye.]

THIRD WITCH:  Ahem.  Of course, you'd have to get caught, first....

FIRST WITCH and SECOND WITCH:  Gasp!

THIRD WITCH: What? We're witches!  We have to be sneaky, why do you think we're camped out here in the woods?  And seriously, do you think in the midst of everything happening on Zoom, someone's going to notice?  The world is going so crazy, I'm expecting it to rain toads at any moment!  Give this poor Educator a break.

FIRST WITCH:  Oh, Alecto, you always were a rebel.

Okay, back in the real world...

Sadly, my three witches are right, and this is the answer I have to give.  Since the parade won't be a part of a class, there is no TEACH Act exception, so transmitting the music via Zoom is just like putting it out over a streaming service or live TV: a no-go without permission[1].

That said, I dug around in my cauldron, and I can offer this possible solution:

Round about the copyright go

In the creative solution throw

Songs that "copyleft" be

Can help thee celebrate Halloween

For works freely used and easy got

Search "Copyleft Halloween Songs," and find a lot.

Not very much toil and trouble

"Copyleft" works make music bubble!

Just in case my Shakespearean verse is too obtuse, what I'm saying is: Hop on your favorite search engine and type "copyleft Halloween songs."[2]

What will this do?

For those of you who don't know: "Copyleft"[3] is slang for: "I could own and control this copyright, but I am so cool, I am letting you use it, so long as you let others use it, too."  Meaning: "copyleft" work is free to use, by anyone, so long as whatever you generate using the work is also free to use.[4]

Now, as with all clever solutions, this one calls for thorough planning.  I listened to a few of the songs I found this way; not all of them are, as they say, "safe for work" (or at least safe for school) so check out the songs before you Zoom them out to parents. But since this is music the authors have proudly composed and released for free use by a wide audience, I suspect at least some of it will meet your needs.[5]

[NOTE: I don't know if it would work for your school, but this one by Frannie Comstock is hilariously clever[6] (and mentions lawyers)!  If nothing else, give it a listen just for a fun 5 minutes.  Here is that YouTube link written out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzvlAuUiM5s]

Happy Halloween!

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

This question is at the vertex of the law and ethics.  What an institution may be positioned to do with archival images legally might not be what our society demands ethically.  And if the issue impacts real people with real feelings, this conflict can lead to legal claims—regardless of solid footing based on precedent and the law.[1]

When it comes to images of children, who can't legally consent to the use of their images, the ethical issues arising from agency, respect, and self-determination are all the more critical.

The member clearly knows this, and is seeking a direction for assessing how to access, catalog, and use them—if at all. The law is often too blunt an instrument to assess ethical questions, but in this case, I believe the legal steps for assessing the use of such such images can provide a framework for the deeper assessment of the ethical considerations[2] .

Below, I will list the "legal" steps an attorney considers when reviewing a museum or archive's acquisition, but focus on the ethical considerations connected to those factors, especially with regard to use of images of children.

1.  Ownership of the Physical Object

This stage is where an institution looks at the provenance of the object and, if that physical object is to be transferred to the institution, addresses the legal priority of making sure the title is "clear."

Ethical considerations: How did the physical object come into existence?  Was the creator a member of the community being documented, an academic, a journalist, or an "outsider?"  Does it appear that parents or guardians were present?  What was the original purpose of the object?  Does any of that information suggest coercion, exploitation, or invasion of privacy?

Or, as the International Council on Archives puts it in Section 7 of their Code:

Archivists...must respect the privacy of individuals who created or are the subjects of records, especially those who had no voice in the use or disposition of the materials.

2.  Ownership of the Copyright

This stage is where an institution looks at the original ownership of the copyright of the image, any transfers of those rights, the use of those rights, if the rights have expired or been transferred to the public domain, and if any of those rights are to be transferred to the institution.

Ethical considerations: Who "owns" the rights to the image?  Are the rights financially valuable?  Have they been put to non-academic, commercial use before, or are they likely to be?  Can your institution accept the rights in a way that limits future commercial exploitation of depicted minors?

Or, as the Society of American Archivists puts it in Section VI of their Code of Ethics:

Archivists may place restrictions on access for the protection of privacy or confidentiality of information in the records.

3.  Manner of Accession

This stage is where an institution looks at the overall package it is acquiring.  In this case, the member has pointed out that the data collection project may have over-stepped some (formal or informal) boundaries.  Other accession challenges can be donor-imposed conditions, environmental factors, and budget concerns.

Or, as the International Council on Archives puts it in Section 2 of their Code of Ethics:

Archivists should appraise records impartially basing their judgment on a thorough knowledge of their institution’s administrative requirements and acquisitions policies.

...and in Section 5 of that same Code:

Archivists negotiating with transferring officials or owners of records should seek fair decisions based on full consideration – when applicable – the following factors: authority to transfer, donate, or sell; financial arrangements and benefits; plans for processing; copyright and conditions of access. Archivists should keep a permanent record documenting accessions, conservation and all archival work done.

4.  Legal Considerations of Content

This stage is where an institution looks for specific concerns caused by the precise content in the materials.  When it comes to pictures of minors, this means assessing if the content is in any way criminal, contains evidence of a crime, if the information suggests they were a ward of the state, if it originated from sealed criminal records, and if the use will in any way be commercial (and thus require permission).

Or, as the Society of American Archives puts it in Section IX of their Code of Ethics:

Archivists must uphold all federal, state, and local laws.

5.  Identity of Person(s) Portrayed

This stage is where an institution looks at the depiction of the real person portrayed in the material and assesses if it poses any additional challenges.

Or, as the Society of American Archives puts it in Section VI of their Code of Ethics:

Archivists strive to promote open and equitable access to their services and the records in their care without discrimination or preferential treatment, and in accordance with legal requirements, cultural sensitivities, and institutional policies.

6.  Alignment with Mission

An archive or museum will always have a mission—or "charitable purpose"—at its core.  This is how it maintains a tax-exempt status, its charter, and its ability to operate.  Does the contemplated use of the content you are focusing on (the images of children) match up with that mission?  Or it is somehow at odds or unaligned with it?

This consideration warrants a repeat of Section 7 of the International Council on Archives Code of Ethics:

Archivists should take care that corporate and personal privacy as well as national security are protected without destroying information, especially in the case of electronic records where updating and erasure are common practice. They must respect the privacy of individuals who created or are the subjects of records, especially those who had no voice in the use or disposition of the materials.

7.  Alignment with Collection Purpose

Just as an archive or museum will always have a mission—or "charitable purpose"—at its core, so will a particular collection have a description that sets out its scope, methods, and purpose.  Does the contemplated use of the content you are focusing on (the images of children) match up with that description?  Or it is somehow extraneous or not quite consistent with it?  If sensitive material is not squarely within the scope of the collection, it shouldn't be there at all.

Or, as the Society of American Archives puts it in Section III of their Code of Ethics:

Archivists should exercise professional judgment in acquiring, appraising, and processing historical materials. They should not allow personal beliefs or perspectives to affect their decisions.

That's great...but what to do?!?

When faced with a sensitive decision like the one posed by the member, a subject-focused analysis based on the above factors is the right way to move ahead, in one of three directions:

• If there is a decision to accession the materials and facilitate access, a written protocol for handling the sensitivities should be made part of the policies of the collection.
• If there is a decision to accession but limit access (something archival values generally counsel against) there should be a clear path through the restrictions and a well-documented justification for the limitations.
• If there is a decision to decline accession, the basis of the decision should be documented in light of the factors impacting the decision.

In this particular case, any of the three above-listed options might be appropriate.  From the brief description provided by the member, it sounds like the photos were joyful documentation of a community by its own members—not exploitive or rooted in dubious practices. 

But even under a "best case scenario"[3] like the one provided by the member, it is appropriate to develop a checklist based on the mission of the institution, and the goals of the collection, to be assured any archival images with minors:

1) will not be subject to commercial exploitation by the institution or a third party accessing the collection (unless there is properly executed permission allowing such use);

2) were not created in a manner inconsistent with the mission, values, and ethics of your institution; or if they were, the collection parameters address those concerns;

3) are included in a manner consistent with the purpose of the collection; and

4) there is a process[4] for any individual or relative to request removal of an image of a depicted minor.  Since such a request would only come after there was a determination that the image was consistent with the values of the institution and fit within the scope of the collection, any evaluation of such a request should be made based on the reasons for the request.

The good news is, the same documentation that shows careful assessment of the ethical factors will help you with any future legal concerns.

And finally, there is one more option for this particular scenario, which is to ask each church to include in their weekly bulletin or routine outreach:

Our church has been selected for inclusion in the ABC institution's online archives. As part of this work, we have provided numerous photos of our events over the years, which include pictures of many of our congregants when they were children. If you have any concerns with your childhood image being included in such a collection, please alert us.  Otherwise, please know that our community records are being preserved for the future!

That way, the church as the original provider of the records can "claw back" any photos that a person might object to, and your archive will have another step in its own records to show it did everything it could to respect people's agency and privacy.

Thank you for a thoughtful 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

This question came into "Ask the Lawyer" with a request for a quick turnaround, so we'll keep this brief.

Are we permitted to make our own safety rules?

Yes...and no.[1]  But that doesn't matter for this question, because the member's real objective is...

 "We would like to require that they wear actual cloth (or paper surgical) face masks."

...which a library with a well-developed, uniformly applied Safety Plan can absolutely do.

Why is that?

As of this writing[2], there is documented evidence that the CDC is still weighing the advisability of face shields.  Here is what they have to say:

(For the less cartoon-oriented[3], the CDC says it like this:)

Of course, at the same time, as the member points out, the State of New York now allows face shields to "count" as a face cover:

66-3.2 Face-Coverings....

(i) Face-coverings shall include, but are not limited to, cloth masks (e.g. homemade sewn, quick cut, bandana), surgical masks, N-95 respirators, and face shields.

Meanwhile, the REALMS study has hit the library community with THIS cold cup of coffee[4]:

Libraries should be paying attention to all of these evolving resources[5], and should regard their Safety Plan as a "living document" that evolves with that information.  This will help libraries develop a plan that can help them help patrons adhere to CDC guidelines like this one:

The bottom line?  If your library bases its access and services on current information, is careful to adhere to its obligations under the ADA, and adheres to a Safety Plan that provides—based on the combined input from such reliable sources—that certain areas may only be accessed by those wearing faces masks (and/or gloves, and/or only if they agree to spray down certain surfaces, and/or only by a certain number of people a day), it may do so.

It all comes down to having a Safety Plan based on your library's unique size, design, staffing capacity, and collection materials.  With a plan that is linked to established factors, the best guidance we can get in uncertain times, and reliable enforcement, anything is possible.[6]

Thanks for an insightful question!

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

As the use of online tools for tracking use of copyright-protected content becomes more widespread, this is happening to schools, libraries, museums, and other cultural/educational institutions with greater frequency.

While these threats will vary based on the circumstances, here is a step-by-step "Copyright Threat Diffusion Guide" to help you de-escalate the tension and figure out what to do, from the moment an infringement threat hits your in-box.

Step 1

Breathe.  It's going to be okay.  Make some tea, or go for a walk if you feel nervous.

Step 2

Print the threat, and save a copy as a PDF with the document name "CopyrightClaim[DATE]."  DO NOT FORWARD IT.

Step 3

DO NOT REPLY to the threat.

Step 4

DO NOT take any of the steps it demands (removal of content, paying money, saying you’re sorry, etc.).  Just stay cool for a few more steps, first.

Step 5

Within one business day of its arrival, appoint a "copyright claim buddy"^[1] to work with you on this.  If you are a director, this is a good role for your second-in-command.  If there is no other employee who can help out, loop in a board member (all of this should be over the phone, no e-mails).  Just "Hello, we got a claim of copyright infringement we need to assess, I read this thing that says an organization should always have at least two people work on that type of thing, can you work with me on it?"

Step 6

Hopefully, you now have a "copyright claim buddy" and you are ready to make your first decision: alert your institution's lawyer, or alert your institution's insurance carrier.  Either is good.

Here's how you notify your attorney: If you have lawyer, e-mail them the pdf of the threat (cc your buddy), and write "The [library] received this on [DATE].  [NAME] and I are responsible for handling it.  Are you available to help us this week on this, and if so, can you propose a budget for helping us with this?  And if you can't help right now, can you recommend someone who can?  We know we need to handle this promptly."^[2]

Here's how you notify the insurance carrier: If you have an agent or broker, e-mail them the pdf of the threat, and say "The [library] received this on [DATE].  [NAME] and I are responsible for handling it.  Is there coverage for this, and if so, does the carrier want to respond?"

It is reasonable to expect replies within three business days.

Step 7

With Step 6 done, the matter is either out of your hands as the driving force of resolution (you and your buddy will remain engaged with the carrier or the lawyer, but they will be the interface with the claimant...if they decide the threat is even worth responding to), OR you have confirmed you have no insurance coverage for this, and you haven't found a lawyer who can help you.^[3]  Which brings us to...

Step 8

Step 8 is the time for all the initial responses that likely hit you in an adrenalized rush when you first opened the threatening message.  It includes things like:

• Conducting an inventory of your institution's alleged use of the material^[4];
• Establishing how the material came to be used as it was (if it was);
• Assessing if your institution's use of the material was "fair use";
• Assessing if any internal policies were violated when the material was used (again, if it was);
• Assessing if your institution's use of the material was under a license;
• Determining if a third party supplied the material to the institution;
• Determining if it is wise to remove the material now;
• Determining if the material listed in the threat letter is protected by Copyright;
• Determining if the copyright to the material listed in the threat letter is registered with the Copyright Office;
• Seeking any other factors that would weaken the threats on the claim;
• Using all the above-bulleted information to assess your institution's unique position in this matter.^[5]

Whenever possible, everything in "Step 8" should be either conducted by an investigation by your insurance carrier, or with the participation of your library's attorney so the findings are protected by attorney-client privilege. 

Step 9

Step 9 is the course of action developed based on the information established in Step 8.

Because so many variables impact it, there is no one answer or outcome to Step 9, but here are some real-world resolutions I have seen:

Taking a close look at the content, it was determined that the material in the threat and the material used by the institution weren't actually the same thing. Result: case closed with no credible threat of litigation having been made.

Taking a close look at the content, it was determined that the Copyright was not registered, and thus there was no credible threat of litigation at that time.  Also, there was some room to claim fair use. Result: to be cautious, the institution removed the content, but without acknowledging the threat and with no money paid.

Taking a close look at the content, it was determined that...Oops, this institution made a mistake and used someone's content without permission to advertise a small, free event.  Further, the content was properly registered, so the threat of litigation was credible. Result: insurance carrier took over and negotiated a very small settlement.

These are just a few examples, but they show the range of resolution possible when a systematic analysis of threatened copyright infringement is conducted in a calm and rational manner.

I do want to emphasize the importance of bringing in your institution's attorney.  Determining the facts that position an institution to take Step 9 requires a full and frank discussion of what might have happened during Step 8.  That means that unless the process is protected by attorney-client privilege, getting to Step 9 can create discoverable evidence that would have to be turned over during a lawsuit.  Depending on what happened, that could be to your institution's disadvantage.

Finally: I know I started this with the admonition to "stay calm," but then included some fairly alarming things in this answer! For anyone who has read this and is now worried about content your institution has posted on its website or on social media, a nice way to allay a panic attack is to casually reach out to your insurance carrier or agent and say: "Hey, do we have coverage for alleged copyright infringement? We don't plan on infringing anybody, but it would be good to know what to do if someone claims we have."

That way, you know who to call just in case you get one of these letters. 

Call it "Step Zero."

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

In 2012, I was an in-house attorney at a university when the "Penn State Scandal"^[1] broke.  Along with the nation, I was horrified to learn about the serial sexual abuse of children by a powerful coach in an NCAA Division I football program--and just as critically, the system that allowed the abuse to go unchecked for so long.

If I hadn't been before, at that point I became acutely aware of the responsibility of an institution to safeguard the vulnerable populations it serves—even when only hosting or renting a part of its facility.^[2]  I looked to the law and other guidance for solutions, and spent time working on contracts, policies, and trainings for safeguarding minors--and avoid liability for failing to do so.

As the member's questions point out, in a busy, community-oriented library, that liability can enter the scene in many ways.  Let's tackle their questions one-by-one.

Member question: Many of our libraries have community rooms that are reserved at no cost, or minimal cost, for service organizations, community groups, or private events. What best practice measures should libraries implement to reduce liability? Is there particular language that we should include in our community room rental agreements or policies?
I have spent a lot of time over the last four years^[3] reviewing various library policies.  And if there is one thing I have learned, it's that almost every library governs the use of its space by outside organizations differently. 

This makes a uniform approach to this question difficult, but I think I can give you some good initial food for thought by providing two answers:

ANSWER #1: adopt a “Protection of Minors” addendum to written policies and (ahem^[4]) "handshake procedures" for allowing use of your facilities for one-time (or very rare) use by outside groups.

Thank you for using the ABC Library for your gathering! 

At the ABC Library, our mission is based on service to the community, and that includes a commitment to practices that keep our community safe.

Therefore, a representative of your organization must fill out this "Assurance Regarding Minors" before granting you permission to use the space.

1.  Will your event include minors (children under the age of 18)?  YES     NO

If "NO", we're all set, please sign and date below.

If "YES", please continue

2.  Will your event require the guardian or parent of any minors attending to be present?

YES     NO

If "YES", we're all set, please sign and date below.

If "NO", please continue

3.  If minors unaccompanied by a parent or guardian will be at your event, please list the adults responsible for the well-being of the minors, and how your organization has confirmed they do not pose a risk to the minors.

Thank you for filling out this assurance.

DATE: ________________

SIGNATURE: _______________________

PRINT NAME: ________________________

ADDRESS: ____________________________

WITNESS: _______________________

PRINT NAME: ________________________

ADDRESS: ____________________________

ANSWER #2: Add a "Protection of Minors" provision to the standard contract your library uses  to set the terms of regular/routine use of your facilities by outside groups.

[NOTE: A "Facility Use Agreement" should name the organization in the contract,^[5] set out the rules for use, confirm if the use is paid, bar use for political purposes,^[6] and—critically—if there is a heightened risk to the activity,^[7] require insurance.  What I have set out below is just the provision related to minors.  A template facility use agreement is on "Ask the Lawyer" at https://www.wnylrc.org/ask-the-lawyer/raqs/167.]

Protection of Minors

The ABC Library expressly forbids abuse or sexual abuse of minors on its premises. 

As a condition of using space in the Library, ORGANIZATION represents and warrants:

a.  ORGANIZATION has verified, and shall verify every six months, that all employees and volunteers who will be at the Library per this Facility Use Agreement are not listed on the New York State Sex Offender Registry.

b.  ORGANIZATION maintains a policy barring sexual abuse within its operations, and requires all employees and volunteers to report instances of sexual abuse to law enforcement within 24 hours of observation or receiving a report of sexual abuse; a copy of the policy is attached.

c.  The indemnification and insurance provisions in this agreement expressly include indemnification and coverage of the Library, its trustees, officers, employees, volunteers and agents for any complaint, claim, or cause of action related to alleged sexual abuse.

Next member question: On a related note, what about other library visitors that make use of library common space on a regular basis for tutoring or counseling that doesn't constitute a library sponsored program or group?

This is a very tough one, because the risk will vary based on the design and capacity of your library.

Libraries with space in wide-open areas near circulation and reference desks obviously have an advantage in this regard: there is lots of space for people to meet as described in the question, without the seclusion that can provide protective cover for illegal behavior. 

That said, libraries also provide secluded areas so people have places for quiet contemplation.  Quiet contemplation being one of the things we need more of in this world, I imagine most libraries are not considering totally getting rid of it any time soon.

There is no perfect solution to this issue, but here is the best input I can offer: once every few years (at least), a library should review its floorplan, policies, and any and all safety-related concerns with the library's insurance carrier.  They will be in a position to help the library assess its unique position in this regard.

Finally, what about staff who often work alone in the library, or alone in the children's room? Even with policies regarding unattended children under a particular age, those age limits are often well below adulthood and library staff are in a one-on-one situation for extended periods of time.
At least once a year, staff—especially staff who work alone or in isolated areas—should be trained on practices to keep themselves and others safe.  This should include:

• Security protocols
• Emergency response plan
• Recognizing warning signs and preventing violence in the workplace
• Appropriate boundaries in the workplace
• Addressing and responding to medical emergencies (including mental health emergencies)
• Enforcing the Code of Conduct
• Generating documentation of incidents

For some libraries, this training will draw on a large collection of formal policies.  For others, it will simply be running through a series of standard operating procedures.

The goal of such training--and the answer to the member's question--is to develop and enforce good boundaries (set by written policy or a well-articulated "standard operating procedure"^[8] or "SOP") that includes a clear set of rules^[9] for how to interact with minors, and every person and co-worker in the library.  By developing such rules/procedures while focusing on the entire spectrum of how a library keeps its employees and patrons safe, the energy spent on training and thinking about safety-related best practices will be maximized.

• Requiring groups routinely using library space to give critical assurances and supply insurance;^[10]
• Requiring less routine users to at least give written assurance as to how they ensure safety;^[11]
• Training employees regularly to be aware of and ready to enforce policies related to safety;

...positions a library to both diminish the risk of child abuse at its premises, and to have the documentation to show the library did the best it could to diminish that risk.  This reduces both the likelihood of harm, and liability.

And as always when it comes to managing risk and liability, as often as is practical, invite your attorney and your insurance carrier to participate in these efforts--they are critical partners in such initiatives. 

Thank you for a very important set of questions.

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

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

I have been looking at some of my post-COVID "Ask the Lawyer" responses, and they are pretty grim.  Such serious writing.

Of course, these are serious days, and operating during COVID-19 is a serious topic.

But I have been on the lookout for a chance for some joy, if not some outright levity.  And finally, this question supplies one!

Why would a question about temporary disuse of a meeting room make me happy?  Well, as some of you may have noticed, very little gratifies me more than emphasizing a library's autonomy.[1]

So, hear me rejoice: Yes, your library has the right to disallow all meeting room use in the interest of safety!

And if that isn't joyful enough, get ready for more good news: this is true whether your library is a tenant or a landowner, a public library or an association library, a library in a big city or a library in a small rural village!

Why is that?  If a chartered library in New York has assessed its unique space, its unique operational capacity, and its unique ability to operate safely, and as a result has adopted a Safety Plan that does not allow meeting spaces or on-site programming, then...there will be no meeting use or on-site programming.  It's as simple as that.

Now, that said, can someone try and complain about it?  Sure.[2] Can a building owner (like a town or a landlord) try and over-ride it? Yes.[3]  Could a pre-COVID contract be implicated?[4]  Yes.  But as an autonomous entity governed by an independent board, can your library make a Safety Plan and stick to it?  Yes.

As it should be.

Of course, within that autonomy is the obligation to steward and utilize library assets responsibly, and in compliance with the law.[5]  This is why the member's point about uniform enforcement and clarity is so important.  If the access is restricted for the Book Club, it needs to be restricted for the Comic Book Club, and even for the Garden Club.[6]  But after ensuring basic fairness and compliant use of library resources, the baseline decision about what facilities to allow access to during the pandemic is in the hands of the library's board and director.  And as I have said in many of my recent answers: they must put safety first.

Only one thing remains to be said: despite my obvious relish for the task, I want to assure the reading public that I still did my homework for this reply.  As of this date,[7] the only court rulings in New York to address litigation or complaints about library access as impacted by COVID-19 are numerous claims about transmission concerns impeding access to a prison law library[8] (now, in that case, I can understand why someone would complain).  But I found nothing regarding action against public and association libraries due to COVID-induced closure, reduced operations, and impediments to general access.  Hopefully it stays that way.[9]

Thanks for a good question and for some time on the bright side.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

First: that is good news about your employee.

Second: a gold star to your library for having a screening system that works, and for following the requirement to restrict an employee who trips a screening factor from on-site work while waiting for test results.

Third: Let's talk about your alternate scenario (the one where you don't get such good news).

As of August 17, 2020, any library[1] that is up and running should have a Safety Plan as required by both the guidance for "Office-based Work", and "Retail Business Activities" (we'll call this the "Guidance").

The Guidance includes the requirement to fill out a New York Forward Business Affirmation Form, which attests to having a Safety Plan.  It also answers the member’s question about what to do if an employee tests positive for COVID-19.

Here is what the Guidance (as of 8/18/2020) requires:

An individual who screens positive for COVID-19 symptoms must not be allowed to enter the office and must be sent home with instructions to contact their healthcare provider for assessment and testing.

Responsible Parties should remotely provide such individuals with information on healthcare and testing resources.

Responsible Parties must immediately notify the state and local health department about the case if test results are positive for COVID-19.

Responsible Parties should refer to DOH’s “Interim Guidance for Public and Private Employees Returning to Work Following COVID-19 Infection or Exposure”[2] regarding protocols and policies for employees seeking to return to work after a suspected or confirmed case of COVID-19 or after the employee had close or proximate contact with a person with COVID-19.

So, the answer to the member's question: "What if the test came back positive?" is: "[I]immediately notify the state and local health department."

After that, the direction from the local health department may vary, but the Guidance requires:

If an employee has had close or proximate contact[3] with a person with COVID-19 for a prolonged period of time AND is experiencing COVID-19 related symptoms, the employee may return to work upon completing at least 10 days of isolation from the onset of symptoms.

...[and]...

If an employee has had close or proximate contact with a person with COVID-19 for a prolonged period of time AND is not experiencing COVID-19 related symptoms, the employee may return to work upon completing 14 days of self-quarantine.

And after that, things can really vary.  But in a scenario where every employee of the library came within six feet[4] of their (now confirmed as) infected co-worker, the library really could be looking at up to two weeks of employees in self-quarantine...along with any other response required by the local health department.

This is not a feel-good scenario.  But the good news is, the same Guidance that requires a library[5] to require employees to isolate also reduces the likelihood of such a remedy being needed.  This is because the Guidance also requires a host of preventative practices to limit exposure in the first place, including:

• Staggering shifts to limit "close or proximate contact," between people;
• Creating and posting clear signage;
• Consistently enforcing masking, cleaning, and social distancing practices

If a library maps these things out for employees, and consistently enforces them, there will be less need for the "isolation/quarantine" sections.  While right now, there is no magic bullet, the simple elements of your library's Safety Plan can reduce the need for quarantine.

And that's it; thanks for a great question.  I hope this answer never has to come in handy for your library.  But just in case it does: here’s a quick checklist for the steps listed in this response [6]:

"CHECKLIST FOR RESPONDING TO NOTICE OF COVID-19 EXPOSURE AT THE LIBRARY; TO BE USED IN CONJUCTION WITH UPDATED SAFETY PLAN"

• However the library was notified of the potential close/proximate contact, obtain a copy of the notice in writing (or send a confirmation e-mail to the source);
• As required by the most recent New York Forward Guidance, notify the library's local public health Department (both in person and in writing), and factor in their response[7];
• As required by the most recent New York Forward Guidance and the library's Safety Plan, determine who (if anyone) else must be restricted from the workplace, for how long; and if any further testing must be required;
• Ensure the library is taking steps to protect the privacy of any employees disclosing screening factors (like a high temperature);
• Ensure the library is taking steps to assess if any employee must be given paid time off or will need assistance to claim short-term disability or Paid Family Leave Act benefits;
• Generate a short statement reviewing the above check listed factors, summarizing what your library has done for each step, and make sure you retain copies of all documentation showing you completed these steps;
• Once these actions are taken and these determinations are made, notify your Board of Trustees of the critical aspects of the situation, but take care to respect the privacy of employees.

Here is a template notice to the board, designed to reflect taking the necessary steps, while also protecting employee privacy: 

On ____________, the library received notification of an [individual/employee] testing positive for COVID-19. As required by current guidance from the State, we notified the Health Department immediately.  At this time, the direction from the local health department is _____________________________________[this may be extensive]. 

We have determined that # employees must self-isolate until they DATE. 

We have determined that # employees must self-quarantine until DATE. 

We have confirmed with the health department that as a result of this notice and response, and consultation with the [Executive Committee of the board/full board/board officer/other] we will [close/reduce operations/operate under the status quo], unless the board determines otherwise. 

Our Safety Plan has been followed and we have retained the documentation showing such compliance.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

As the member writes, it is very difficult to determine if some physical factors—coughing, a flush, seeming malaise—are in fact symptoms of COVID-19.  Confronting a patron with suspected symptoms can also lead to concerns impacting community relations, privacy, and the ADA.

A good Safety Plan addresses this concern, without requiring patrons[1] to be removed mid-visit from the library.

To position libraries to address the impact of patrons with suspected symptoms, New York's "Interim Guidance for Essential and Phase II Retail" (issued July 1, 2020)[2] states:

CDC guidelines on “Cleaning and Disinfecting Your Facility” if someone is suspected or confirmed to have COVID-19 are as follows:

• Close off areas used by the person suspected or confirmed to have COVID-19 (Responsible Parties do not necessarily need to close operations, if they can close off the affected areas).
• Open outside doors and windows to increase air circulation in the area.
• Wait 24 hours before you clean or disinfect.
• If 24 hours is not feasible, wait as long as possible.
• Clean and disinfect all areas used by the person who is suspected or confirmed to have COVID19, such as offices, bathrooms, common areas, and shared equipment.
• Once the area has been appropriately disinfected, it can be opened for use.
• Employees without close or proximate contact with the person who is suspected or confirmed to have COVID-19 can return to the work area immediately after disinfection.  Refer to DOH’s “Interim Guidance for Public and Private Employees Returning to Work Following COVID-19 Infection or Exposure“[3] for information on “close or proximate” contacts.  [4]
• If more than seven days have passed since the person who is suspected or confirmed to have COVID-19 visited or used the retail location, additional cleaning and disinfection is not necessary, but routine cleaning and disinfection should continue.

[emphasis on "suspected" has been added]

In other words: your Safety Plan, as informed by the most recent guidelines, should leave nothing to chance.  By using this procedure, library staff are never put in the position of having to guess, ask, or consider if a patron's coughing, sneezing, or other behaviors are COVID-19...rather, the moment the possibility is "suspected," the Plan kicks into action.

Of course, if a patron is properly masked, some of the risk of exposure is limited, even if they are infected (this is why we wear masks and identify areas with six feet of clearance in the first place).  And if a patron removes their mask mid-visit, refuses to keep appropriate distance, or refuses to spray down equipment after using it,[5] THAT person can be asked to leave, simply as a matter of policy—whether they are exhibiting symptoms, or not.[6]

So to answer the question: no, it is not advisable to ask patrons to leave the public building if they are exhibiting any visible COVID symptoms, for exactly the reasons the member provides.[7]  Rather, it is required that your Safety Plan keep people distant from each other, and that the library be ready to address any real or suspected exposure as quickly and effectively as possible. 

That said, having signage that reads "Safety first!  Patrons who are concerned about transmission of germs can arrange curbside service by [INSERT]" is a great way to remind people that if they are having an "off" day, there are many ways to access the services of your library.

I wish you a strong and steady re-opening.

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

Who is “in charge” of a library’s safety plan--the trustees, or the director?

It’s tricky, but if you bear with me, you will get an answer.

When it comes to who is “in charge” at an organization, boards must respect the authority of those they employ to lead (the director).  At the same time, the organization, including the director, must be guided by the work of those fiduciaries ultimately responsible for it (the trustees).

This dynamic can play out in many ways, but in a healthy board-director dynamic, the board lives up to its responsibility as a fiduciary by honoring the authority of the director. So to assess a question like this, I start with the board’s responsibility…which is also the responsibility of the library.

What is the responsibility of a library open during COVID-19?  Here’s the lay of the land, straight from the “NY Forward Lookup Tool”:

The “applicable guidelines”[1] I have so carefully underlined (as found July 6, 2020, at https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/governor.ny.gov/files/atoms/files/RetailMasterGuidance.pdf)  state, in relevant part:

The Responsible Parties – as defined below – are accountable for adhering to all local, state and federal requirements relative to retail business activities. …

The proprietor/operator… or another party as may be designated by the proprietor/operator (in either case, "the Responsible Parties"), shall be responsible for meeting these standards.”

As part of the “applicable guidelines”, the “Responsible Parties” must certify having read and understood the obligation of their institution to “operate in accordance with such guidance,” as shown here[2]:

None of this expressly requires that the person signing the certification, or the developer of a Safety Plan, is any particular person or entity.  Rather, the “owner or agent” of the library (who could be an officer of the board with signing authority from the bylaws, the director, another employee, or even an attorney operating on instructions from the library/client) signs the certification, and at some point, they adopt a Safety Plan.  That’s it.

But while there is no prescribed process for the Safety Plan, a look at some of the things the Plan must address is instructive.  For instance, the above-linked guidance states:

Signage should be used to remind employees and customers to:

• Cover their nose and mouth with a face covering when six feet of social distance cannot be maintained.
• Properly store and, when necessary, discard PPE.
• Adhere to physical distancing instructions.
• Report symptoms of or exposure to COVID-19, and how they should do so.
• Follow hand hygiene and cleaning and disinfection guidelines.
• Follow appropriate respiratory hygiene and cough etiquette.

As I have written about elsewhere[3], the requirements listed above, among other things, become temporary modifications to a library’s Code of Conduct.  In order to enforce social distancing and use of PPE in the library as required by the State, a library must ultimately tie a patron’s failure to do so to its Code and process for restricting access to patrons.[4]  For that reason alone (and there are many, many others, including a Plan’s impact on conditions for employees, procurement practices, security procedures, budget, etc.), the board should be the entity that adopts the Plan.

This is not to say that a director with adequate experience to draft a library’s Safety Plan cannot be the primary author of the Plan.  In fact, the director (and other employees with high familiarity with certain operations) is likely the person best situated to envision adjusted floorplans, shift schedules, workflows, signage posting, employee temperature monitoring, and employee training methods (to name just a few), all of which must be addressed in the Safety Plan. 

But because of the many high-stakes areas a Safety Plan impacts, a library’s board should be the entity accountable for adopting it and ensuring it is updated at regular intervals.  On the flip side, after the Plan is adopted, the director will be the authority responsible for seeing that the Plan is followed.

The board has this accountability for passing the Plan because a COVID-19 Safety Plan is not just a tool for safety, but also a mechanism of legal compliance and risk management.  When you stop and think about it, most policies or plans that relate to safety, legal compliance, and risk management—things like workers’ compensation insurance policies, sexual harassment and civil rights policies, and fiscal controls policies—are all things that a board is ultimately accountable for.  While the director may have the authority to ensure compliance with them, they are adopted by a board. And that is as it should be.

Of course, it can be a challenge for a small board to meet as often as needed to keep a COVID-19 Safety Plan evolving in light of new research, evolving library operations, and on-the-ground improvements.[5]  For such situations, it is good to consider an approach like the one set out in the below template resolution:

BE IT RESOLVED that the board hereby adopts the Safety Plan considered at this meeting of DATE; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Plan be posted in the Library, as required by the Plan, within 24 hours of the passage of this Resolution; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that to ensure the Safety Plan is updated in a manner that is conducive to optimal operations of the Library, the Director, [in consultation with INSERT[6]] is authorized to update the Safety Plan as needed, consistent with CDC and OSHA guidelines, and shall present the current updated version then in effect at each subsequent meeting of the board, to be reviewed and ratified by same.

So, what is the answer to the member’s questions? 

There is no “right” answer to this, but lots of factors point to the board serving as a library’s COVID-19 Safety Plan’s ultimate authority.  That said, in passing such a plan, a board should draw from the experience, and support the executive authority, of the library’s director. 

Like all healthy board-director relationships, this approach requires listening, learning, a good sense of roles and boundaries, and mutual respect.  A tall order in frantic times, but one that good planning and careful consideration[7] can almost always bring about.

Thank you for an important question.

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

This is a deep array of questions, requiring a deep array of answers.

But let’s start with the basics.

There are 64 SUNY campuses, some with more than one library.

What’s cool about these libraries?  They aren’t just collections of books on a campus, but distinct entities within their institutions, governed by the body of laws that apply to all libraries in New York, as well as the law that is SUNY-library specific.

The “SUNY-library specific” law is Education Law 249-a, which states:

The state university trustees and the board of higher education of the city of New York are hereby authorized to establish such rules and regulations as may be necessary and appropriate to make provision for access and use by the residents of the state of the libraries and library facilities of the public institutions of higher education under their respective jurisdictions.

In other words: SUNY and CUNY have libraries, and the boards of SUNY and CUNY can set those libraries’ rules, including the rules governing access.

SUNY’s[1]  board has established “such rules” by, among other things, adopting a policy on “Public Access to SUNY Libraries”[2]  which states:

It is the policy of the State University of New York (University) that the public is given access to University libraries insofar as possible. Since implementation of this policy has fiscal and administrative implications, campuses may extend the facilities of their libraries to the public whenever it can be done and in a manner that is both fiscally sound and consistent with their primary educational mission.

What does this mean for public access to those libraries?

State law gives SUNY broad authority “to establish such rules…for access and use by the residents of the state.” SUNY then uses that authority to develop a policy requiring “that the public is given access to University libraries insofar as possible.”  BUT, after asserting that broad goal, SUNY allows individual campuses to tailor that access based on the “fiscal” and “administrative” considerations of individual institutions.  So while access to the public is the stated goal, the conditions for access are really up to the individual libraries (and the academic leadership they report to).

I tooled around a few SUNY library web sites (I couldn’t resist the Charles B. Sears Law Library at SUNY Buffalo, my alma mater), and each have their own unique conditions for giving the public access.  Some make it easier to find that information than others.  I saw a range of conditions for access…anecdotal evidence that the libraries are using the latitude granted to them by SUNY policy.

And with that background established, I’ll answer the questions.

(1) What are the requirements for a SUNY library to provide access to the general non-campus community/public (those outside staff, faculty, students)?

While the law only goes so far as to “authorize” SUNY to provide for public access, SUNY-wide policy is that “the public is given access to University libraries insofar as possible… whenever it can be done and in a manner that is both fiscally sound and consistent with their primary educational mission.”

So my answer to the first question is: based on SUNY policy, public access to a SUNY library must be provided insofar as possible, provided the use by the public doesn’t interfere with the use of the students and faculty, and the burden of public use doesn’t throw off the budget.[3]

(2) Are there specific requirements/repercussions academic libraries should be aware of in regards to public access or prohibiting public access?

Absolutely, there are requirements and potential repercussions for access to libraries at state institutions.  I could write an entire book on them (and I bet someone has[4]), but here is my quick summary:

• Requirement: develop budgets, staffing plans, and operational policies that ensure the public is given access to University libraries “insofar as possible.”
• Requirement: in coordination with Campus Safety or Campus Police, develop a process to address the most serious public patron behavioral concerns. 
• Requirement: develop a privacy policy regarding the rights students, employees, and public patrons have under CPLR 4509.
• Repercussion: be ready to address civil rights concerns related to the library’s status as a public institution.

(3) What are the Section 108 repercussions for not allowing public access, specifically related to the pandemic? Would libraries still be protected if they provide public 'access by appointment' only? Would "temporary" non-public access still allow for application of the 108 exceptions?

For readers not familiar with it, “Section 108” is the portion of the Copyright Act, which gives special exemptions from infringement to libraries and archives that are open to the public.

Section 108 does not go into great lengths regarding what the requirement “open to the public” means, but some insight can be gained from how it handles access to special collections closed to the general public; such collections qualify for Section 108’s protection so long as they are open “to other persons doing research in [that] specialized field.”  So it is clear that “open to the public” is not intended to be a carte blanche free-for-all.

The current pandemic and SUNY’s efforts to combat it will certainly impact SUNY libraries’ ability to be “open to the public.”  However, I feel confident writing my conclusion that any institution that temporarily restricts all patron access will not be found to have not meet the requirements of section 108.  And I feel just as confident saying that scheduled visits by appointment—if that is what a SUNY library needs to do to ensure safety—would not cause a 108 concern, either.[5]

That said, I cannot feel the same confidence for any Safety Plan that completely and utterly removes all public access.  Public access, even if severely restricted, must still be a component in order to meet the requirements of 108.

(4) Can a SUNY library deny entry to students/faculty refusing to wear a mask in the facility if it's justified in the interests of health and safety?

Broadly and boldly speaking: yes.

BUT.

As discussed at the beginning of this answer, the law of the state of New York and the policies of SUNY give a great deal of latitude to libraries on a campus-by-campus basis.  Different campuses exercise this latitude in different ways.  This means that while the library in one SUNY location may be operating per a Safety Plan confirmed by a central coordinator, another library may be given a directive to develop their own. 

Or, as (former[6]) SUNY Chancellor Kristina M. Johnson put it:

We understand that…each of our campuses is a complex ecosystem with regular engagement with their respective surrounding communities.

Within those different plans will be different solutions for the safe operations of different sites.  Some of those plans will call for masks, because masks will be the only way the planned operations will be able to be conducted safely.  Other plans may only include modified operations that may be performed safely without masks.  And of course, any plan requiring a mask will include the proper ADA accommodations information for those who are not able to wear one.

While the country has watched as some people challenge the requirement to wear PPE on the basis of civil rights, a limited requirement to wear a certain type of protective gear for a narrowly tailored purpose with a general application is not likely to be found a violation of the First Amendment. But of course, when it comes to civil rights, the devil is often in the details.  If, for instance, only a certain type of facemask was required, and that facemask type did not work well with a certain body type, or the need to wear a hijab, it is possible that could trigger an ADA or First Amendment claim. The guidance being assembled by the Center for Disease Control and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration takes into account the diversity of bodies and identities that Safety Plans will need to serve. By using properly credentialed resources and thinking through Safety Plans from multiple perspectives, a SUNY library should be positioned to deny entry to students/faculty refusing to wear a mask in the facility if it's justified in the interests of health and safety.

Last note

In responding to these questions, I am mindful that general legal services are provided to SUNY institutions through the office of the NY State Attorney General, and many campuses have lawyers on staff. Therefore, to the greatest extent possible, any SUNY library, department, center, school, college or university finalizing a Safety Plan should take care that whenever possible, coordinated guidance from SUNY’s recognized legal advisers is incorporated. (Very often, this will have been done at the level where the institution is planning its emergency response.)  I am always gratified when a SUNY lawyer, or another lawyer, calls me to discuss my work for libraries, and I welcome those calls.[7]

As of this date (June 26, 2020) I have found no publicly accessible model safety plan or guidance from SUNY HQ with regard to the resumption of operations.  Rather, the SUNY page for COVID questions shows that the State University of New York is very much in an assessment and response mode, and the SUNY Library Consortium’s page shows that plans are still in development.[8] I am sure that will change as the situation evolves, and I encourage people to be attentive to that page, and their own administrations, for further specific guidance.   At the same time, since no one knows a library better than the librarians who works at it, I encourage pro-active assessment and formulation of access and safety plans by library leadership, informed by the people who work and study there.

This guidance was assembled directly from available materials, and while not legal advice, it is consistent with published SUNY materials and the law.  I hope it is helpful to SUNY libraries as you consider the continuation of your operations.

Thank you for a great array of thoughtful questions. I wish our SUNY libraries much health and strength for the days ahead.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

For this answer, we are again joined by Jessica Keltz, associate attorney at the Law Office of Stephanie Adams, PLLC.

This question takes us back to the SHIELD Act. Last discussed by Ask The Lawyer at the end of 2019 (https://www.wnylrc.org/ask-the-lawyer/raqs/100). The SHIELD Act requires businesses (and other entities that conduct business, such as, yes, libraries) that collect personal data to institute compliance measures including assessing security risks, implementing new data security measures, and securely destroying private information when it is no longer needed for business purposes.

We will take the two questions separately.

First, what responsibilities does an employer have to the employee when this happens?

If your library is not part of a large institution such as a university or a hospital, its compliance responsibilities likely fall under the SHIELD Act requirements for “small businesses.”

The act’s definition of a “small business” is:

"Small business" shall mean any person or business with (i) fewer than fifty employees; (ii) less than three million dollars in gross annual revenue in each of the last three fiscal years; or (iii) less than five million dollars in year-end total assets, calculated in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

Compliance requirements for small businesses under the SHIELD Act are more generalized; they simply need to ensure that their data security safeguards are appropriate for their business’ size, complexity, scope of activities, and the sensitivity of the information the business handles.  Within those guidelines, libraries that fall under the “small business” requirements should have a data breach plan.

The event that the member described is certainly cause to be concerned that a data breach had occurred, and the library should have a plan to address it. What does addressing it look like? The most important elements are being able to evaluate whether a breach occurred (which it seems like the employer was able to do), and disclosing to the potential victim that a breach may have occurred (which the employer definitely did).

If the library had found that a data breach did occur, staff or a contract data security expert should re-evaluate the library’s security protocols to make sure to prevent the problem in the future; but in this case, as a breach did not occur, this may not be necessary.

In the case of a data breach or potential data breach (and this falls under “potential”), the employer is also required to disclose the concern to any resident of New York state whose private information was, or is reasonably believed to have been, accessed or acquired by a person without valid authorization. By notifying you this event occurred, the employer has complied with the requirement.

Meanwhile, what can an employee in this position do?

First: as soon as possible, the employee should consider involving their own attorney.  The risks posed by this situation are too critical.  For those who can’t afford an attorney, contact the local county bar association to learn about pro bono assistance in your region.

Second, assuming the employer has complied with their obligations under the SHIELD Act, since this involved a fraudulent claim for unemployment from the New York State Department of Labor (“NYSDOL”), the employee should work with the NYSDOL to learn all they can about the incident.

This starts with contacting NYSDOL’s fraud department at https://labor.ny.gov/agencyinfo/uifraud.shtm, to see what they can share about the abuse of your personal information.  Armed with whatever other information is gathered from NYSDOL, the employee (or their attorney) can then look at their own credit history and other uses of their identity for potential breaches (social media and e-mail accounts).

While this is going on, be extra-wary of any calls, emails, or other contact requesting any personal information.  Always require people to call back or write to you with any out-of-the-blue-seeming inquiry.  Make sure the people close to you know you are on heightened alert.  Consider changing all passwords (just make sure you keep a good record of the changes in a very secure place).

The Federal Trade Commission offers guidelines on when and how to place a “fraud alert” on your credit, to stop new accounts from being opened using your name and information.

https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0275-place-fraud-alert.  Any person who learns their information may have been illegally accessed should also request a free credit history from one of the three main credit bureaus, and review their credit report for any unexpected checks or accounts. Depending on what you find when you do so, consider freezing your credit and reporting the theft of your identity to the Federal Trade Commission.

And finally, if any employee has reason to believe their employer or a contract provider is at fault for a breach (even if the employer or contract provider denies it) it is even more critical that the employee consult their own attorney as soon as possible.  There are too many variables to give general guidance on this, but broadly speaking, the more you have at stake (employment-related information, direct deposit information, health and benefit-related information, and of course, a potential dispute with an employer) the more important it is to act quickly.

The scenario the member describes is nerve-wracking, and the member was right to reach out about it. Don’t go it alone!

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

There are four ways it can be permissible:

1.  Check the license[1] from the publisher and see if the purchase of the physical copies came with any digitization/duplication permission.  You'd be surprised how many rights you buy (or don't buy) when you make that hard copy purchase.  Publishers take a variety of approaches on this, and an individual publisher's permissions may change from work-to-work, so confirm (or rule out) this approach for each work.

2.  If the license does not allow making digital copies, contact the publisher, and see if it can be expanded.  Publishers are now getting many requests like this and may be ready with a simple (and affordable) solution.

3.  I am not a fan of them (they are as outdated and as risky as the Ford Pinto), but the "CONTU" guidelines speak to this issue.  I am including the relevant guidelines, as presented in Copyright Office Circular 21, under this answer.  If one of your precise needs fits one of the "permissible uses" listed in Circular 21, you are all set.

4.  Speaking of CONTU, the first "permissible use" listed in the guidelines may help you out here, with a slight twist on your scenario.  In the event that the physical copies listed in the question are mailed out and not returned as feared, the guidelines allow for emergency copying after the fact (of course, they also require that at some point, you purchase more physical copies, but at least you can get the copies to the students).

Those are my four solutions, based on conventional approaches and current case law.

I'll also throw out a "fifth option" based on a slightly different approach, which, depending on some precise facts, could work for faculty teaching choral classes:

The 110 Solution

Copyright Section 110 allows an academic choral group (if meeting as part of a class) to display "a work in an amount comparable to that which is typically displayed in the course of a live classroom session," during an online class/rehearsal.

How can that help with the member's scenario?

Let's say I am in a class that is working up an a capella performance of "36 Chambers,"[2] as arranged by the composers of the original work.[3]

If the class was still meeting physically, Copyright Section 110(a) would allow us to perform the song and to display the music on the in-class smart board.  In the online environment, the same performance and display could happen via the internet, as allowed by 110(b) (the "TEACH Act")—again, so long as only the amount "typically" displayed in class was shown. 

Whether in-person or online, the rehearsal would include review of the different parts for bass, tenor, alto and soprano,[4] with the relevant music displayed on the screen.  While an academic institution can't tell people to take screen shots of the music displayed for rehearsal purposes, students who want to snap screenshots of a class to take notes is a fact of modern-day academia.  If a student who was told to purchase a copy of their part uses this method to ensure they are practicing on an incremental basis, that's out of the school's control, and the student can make their own claim to fair use.

This type of solution should never be used as a deliberate alternative to the purchase of individual copies.  But so long as the display is incremental and truly a part of the in-class experience, it is a viable option.

I wish all music faculty approaching the Fall 2020 semester many good performances, whether virtual, or face-to-face.  These are tough days for people who love to sing, who enjoy the community of a choir, and who need to hone their vocal art in collaboration with others.  Hunting for music should not add to the burden, and with a few tricks and an awareness of the limits of the law, it doesn't have to.

------------------------

Guidelines for Educational Uses of Music

The purpose of the following guidelines is to state the minimum and not the maximum standards of educational fair use under Section 107 of H.R. 2223.

The parties agree that the conditions determining the extent of permissible copying for educational purposes may change in the future; that certain types of copying permitted under these guidelines may not be permissible in the future, and conversely that in the future other types of copying not permitted under these guidelines may be permissible under revised guidelines.

Moreover, the following statement of guidelines is not intended to limit the types of copying permitted under the standards of fair use under judicial decision and which are stated in Section 107 of the Copyright Revision Bill. There may be instances in which copying which does not fall within the guidelines stated below may nonetheless be permitted under the criteria of fair use.

Reproduction of Copyrighted Works

Permissible Uses

1 Emergency copying to replace purchased copies which for any reason are not available for an imminent performance provided purchased replacement copies shall be substituted in due course.

2 For academic purposes other than performance, single or multiple copies of excerpts of works may be made, provided that the excerpts do not comprise a part of the whole which would constitute a performable unit such as a section¹, movement or aria, but in no case more than 10 percent of the whole work. The number of copies shall not exceed one copy per pupil.

3 Printed copies which have been purchased may be edited or simplified provided that the fundamental character of the work is not distorted or the lyrics, if any, altered or lyrics added if none exist.

4 A single copy of recordings of performances by students may be made for evaluation or rehearsal purposes and may be retained by the educational institution or individual teacher.

5 A single copy of a sound recording (such as a tape, disc, or cassette) of copyrighted music may be made from sound recordings owned by an educational institution or an individual teacher for the purpose of constructing aural exercises or examinations and may be retained by the educational institution or individual teacher. (This pertains only to the copyright of the music itself and not to any copyright which may exist in the sound recording.)

Prohibitions

1 Copying to create or replace or substitute for anthologies, compilations or collective works.

2 Copying of or from works intended to be “consumable” in the course of study or of teaching such as workbooks, exercises, standardized tests and answer sheets and like material.

3 Copying for the purpose of performance, except as in A(1) above.

4 Copying for the purpose of substituting for the purchase of music, except as in A(1) and A(2) above.

5 Copying without inclusion of the copyright notice which appears on the printed copy. (iv)

Discussion of Guidelines

The Committee appreciates and commends the efforts and the cooperative and reasonable spirit of the parties who achieved the agreed guidelines on books and periodicals and on music. Representatives of the American Association of University Professors and of the Association of American Law Schools have written to the Committee strongly criticizing the guidelines, particularly with respect to multiple copying, as being too restrictive with respect to classroom situations at the university and graduate level. However, the Committee notes that the Ad Hoc group did include representatives of higher education, that the stated “purpose of the … guidelines is to state the minimum and not the maximum standards of educational fair use” and that the agreement acknowledges “there may be instances in which copying which does not fall within the guidelines … may nonetheless be permitted under the criteria of fair use.” The Committee believes the guidelines are a reasonable interpretation of the minimum standards of fair use. Teachers will know that copying within the guidelines is fair use. Thus, the guidelines serve the purpose of fulfilling the need for greater certainty and protection for teachers. The Committee expresses the hope that if there are areas where standards other than these guidelines may be appropriate, the parties will continue their efforts to provide additional specific guidelines in the same spirit of good will and give and take that has marked the discussion of this subject in recent months

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

Before I answer this question, I do have to emphasize: as I wrote here, fair use was not modified during the height of the initial pandemic closures.  Further, there is no case law or regulatory guidance indicating things will be any different if we have to return to the level of lockdown experienced this Spring. 

There is no "emergency use" exception to copyright law--even under fair use.  That said, this is an excellent question that captures the experience of working in higher education right now, and I do have a few helpful things to offer in response.

Higher education libraries trying to support another immediate conversion from in-person to online learning should consider doing the following:

1.  Work with their academic and IT colleagues to optimize their institution's rights under the TEACH Act, which under the right conditions, allows the digital transmission of copyright-protected material.

"Optimizing," in this case, means presenting otherwise inaccessible materials in class, so the TEACH Act's[1] exception infringement can be fully used, while making the most of the medium.  For example, if a history class would typically read a chapter of a book before class, then meet in person to discuss the chapter, perhaps now a part of the online class could consist of the faculty member or students reading the chapter aloud,[2] and the class using an asynchronous message board to discuss it.

This method requires faculty to be flexible, but it is one way to ensure access for all, when all else fails.

2.  Unite with other institutions to re-negotiate the terms of digital licenses from academic publishers.

I cannot stress this one enough.  Academic libraries must unite, must negotiate hard, and must threaten to boycott any publisher that refuses to offer a reasonable price for students to access content online.  This was critical before COVID, and it is even more critical now.[3]

3.  Much easier, and even cooler than #2: plan to collaborate with students' local libraries to ensure students can take full advantage of Copyright Section 108's support of access via inter-library loan.

What?

That's right.  Let's say I am a college student from Littleplace, NY.   Suddenly, it's October and I have to vacate my dorm room at ABC College, due to a local surge in COVID-19.  To be ready for the rest of my (now online) classes, I need 12 articles, a textbook that costs $500 (that I was previously sharing with two friends), and a course pak I forgot in my dorm.

So long as I have access to the list of materials, I can head over to the Littleplace Library (or call them) and work to find the materials I need.  Using its rights under Section 108 of the Copyright Code, the Littleplace Library can get me a copy of the articles...possibly even in collaboration with the ABC library, or another academic institution with the right subscription.

In my observation, this is a very under-discussed option.  Remember, your students have a right to work with their local library to get copies under a combination of 108 and (on the part of the student) fair use.  The key is having the course materials listed in such a way, that the local college or public library can easily (and quickly) help them.

This, by the way, is one of the many reasons it is critical to keep open every single one of our small and mid-size libraries in small towns and villages across the country.[4]

4.  Use your institution's compliance with NY's Textbook Access Act.

This is another "if you have time" one. 

In New York, all higher education institutions and publishers must follow this law[5]:

Textbooks shall be sold in the same manner as ordered by such faculty member or entity in charge of selecting textbooks for courses. In the event such product is unavailable as ordered, the bookstore, faculty, and relevant publisher shall work together to provide the best possible substitute that most closely matches the requested item or items, and the publisher shall make available the price of such substitute or substitutes readily available.

This clause has always been applied to combat predatory pricing for course materials, but lends itself to the current situation, too.  If the instructor was given a discount digital copy, the students should be able to buy one, too.

5.  Take some time to examine the latest ruling on academic e-reserves and fair use, so you feel comfortable making the call when you can post things on e-reserve without permission.[6]  Fair use has not been "loosened," but it still has lots of room.  The full document has been updated to "Ask the Lawyer" as "Becker Ruling 2020."  It's boring,[7] but very instructive.

My best wishes for a supported and supportive prep for the Fall semester.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

Since the onset of pandemic restrictions, "Ask the Lawyer" has written a lot on different variations of this topic.[1]

Since I am tired of being the party pooper on this issue,[2] I am offering up something new.  Here it is:

Don't do it...unless you make it something new.

What do I mean by "something new"?  I mean a use that is so clever, so additive, that even though it uses a copyright-protected work, it creates a work with independent meaning.

Examples of this "something new" are:

• Extensive[3] "color commentary" combined with the reading.
• Replacing the characters in the books with people in your town to make a witty commentary about town life.[4]
• Combining the reading with a special talent, such as reading each sentence of a travel book while traveling to a different yoga position, or reading a baking scene in a book while making a cake. 
• Humorous juxtaposition, like reading the first scene of Moby Dick[5] while fishing, or reading a book about puppies to your cat.[6]

Despite all the wishful writing out there, the cloud of the pandemic did not bring us the silver lining of automatic expansion of fair use.  That said, it hasn't diminished fair use.  So, if your library:

• Isn't using the event as a fund-raiser;
• Is using the event to educate and engage the public;
• Requires readers to not use the entire work; and
• Requires a transformative use, like the examples given above...

...[7] there is a strong chance your event can go on as (virtually) planned. [8]

Good luck and happy reading!

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

It is not wrong to require patrons to wear masks.  As of this writing (July 7, 2020), qualified experts agree that masks remain one of the most effective ways to stop the transmission of COVID-19.[1]  In an environment storing circulating materials[2] and shared space, this is a critical step for reducing the risk to library employees, and the public.

That said, even the most well-intentioned efforts can step on the rights of others, including rights under the ADA.  How does a library promote safety, while abiding by the ADA?

The key is to implement and enforce the mask-wearing requirement in a way that doesn’t overstep or unnecessarily limit the access of those living with a disability.[3]

Here is a step-by-step process to help a library assess, draft and enforce a mask-wearing requirement so it is harmonized with the protections of the ADA.

NOTE: For this exercise you will need: a copy of your Safety Plan, the person or team who writes/updates the Safety Plan, a copy of your library’s floorplan, and the documents linked in the steps below. 

Estimated time of activity: 1.5 hours.

Step 1

Isolate the language in your Safety Plan requiring patrons to wearing masks. This is your “Patron Mask Enforcement Language” (“PMEL”).[4]

Step 2

Look at your PMEL. 

Is it a Uniform Use requirement, such as: “All patrons must wear masks upon entry, and the mask must remain in place at all times during your visit, in all areas.”

Or

Is it a Circumstantial Use requirement, such as: “All patrons must wear masks upon entry, and the mask must remain in place at all times during your visit, except when seated in our Wipe Down Reading Area,[5] where seating is at least 7 feet apart, and patrons must spray down the surfaces in their zone after use (limit 20 minutes).”

Step 3

Look at the floor plan.  Is there ANY place in the library where current CDC-advised safety practices can be used to create a place for “Circumstantial Use” of masks?  In other words, is there any place where, after considering all the risks to mitigate through measures other than a mask, can you offer an official mask-free zone to patrons?

For many small libraries, the answer will be a hard “NO.” The space will be just too small.  And for many libraries with more space, the answer will again be a hard “NO,” based on budget; they may have the space, but the extra resources spent to monitor and sanitize the area are just too costly.

When the Safety Plan team reaches a conclusion, document the analysis, and if any zone can be so converted, mark it on the floor plan (which you will attached to the Safety Plan).  For example: The Safety Plan Team met on DATE to review the floor plan and see if any area could be converted into a mask-free zone for patrons.  Based on space, available furniture, costs, and proximity to circulating materials, the team concluded [whatever you concluded].

Step 4

If your library does develop a mask-free zone for patrons, the rules and cleaning protocols for the area must be robustly detailed in your Safety Plan.  The supplies for patrons to do their own spray-down upon arising from the designated seating must be routinely re-stocked.  The rules must be well-posted and strictly enforced. 

Step 5

Now, back to the ADA.  Does your Safety Plan have a section on how a patron can request accommodations while the library is operating under the Plan?  If the answer is “no”, this is a good thing to consider adding.

Why?

I have written previously about libraries’ shifting obligations under the ADA.[6]  All of that previous material applies to this situation, but of course, now we have the extra layer of COVID-19. 

Always, with ADA, the goal of the library should be to find a way to ensure access.  That said, some access will not be as a patron envisions, and some requested accommodations are just not implementable.  Because of this, as I wrote at the top of this answer: “The key is to implement and enforce the mask-wearing requirement in a way that doesn’t overstep or unnecessarily limit the access of those living with a disability.”  When modifying operations to reduce transmission of COVID-19, that means posting information about accommodations and access right along with the other signage you’re developing and posting as part of the Safety Plan.

So with all that as background, “Step 5” is answering this question:

“Does our Safety Plan address access and accommodations as required[7] by the ADA?”  If the answer is “no,” continue to Step 6.

Step 6

If you have decided you must add some ADA-related language to your Safety Plan, you can do so by answering the following questions:

a.  How does a person contact the library to request reasonable accommodations during a time of adjusted operations?

b.  What reasonable accommodations can your library be ready to offer to the following common safety measure-related issues:

• inability to wear a mask
• allergy to hand sanitizer
• chemical sensitivity (triggered by increased use of cleaning products)
• requested assistance requires library employee to get closer than six feet (for instance, help with using computer)
• patron is especially vulnerable to COVID-19 due to other risk factors

Some of the requested accommodations for the above issues will be simple.  Can’t use hand sanitizer?  We’ll provide water, a disposable towel, and soap.  Can’t wear a mask?  We don’t have a mask-free zone, but we’ll be happy to assist you over the phone and you can pick your books up curbside.  Need extra help at the computer?  We’ll figure it out, but our employees have been instructed to stay at least six feet apart unless behind a plexi window, and that is non-negotiable.

Some accommodations are harder.  You’re allergic to the spray-down solution we bought in bulk?  Sorry, we can’t buy a different gross of spray until next month; please let us know what ingredient bothers you and we’ll see if our procurement folks can find something different. Until then, we’ll be happy to assist you over the phone and you can pick your books up curbside.  You have pre-existing conditions that mean you can’t go in a public area, even if there is a Safety Plan being enforced?  We are so sorry to hear that. We miss you.  We wish this whole thing was over.  We are here for you by phone, e-mail, or the internet, and can work with a designated person who will pick up your books.

The key is to ensure that people know how to direct the requests, and that the library is ready to assess them promptly. 

A good way to organize this is to create a section of the Safety Plan providing for signage stating: “For patrons needing disability accommodations while the library is operating under conditions to reduce the transmission of COVID-19, please call NAME at NUMBER, or write to EMAIL or ADDRESS.  You will also find this information in our Safety Plan.  The library is committed to safe access for all.”

Step 7: Feeling Confident

Okay, you have followed the six steps for assessing your Safety Plan and building out its provisions with regard to ADA.  Do you feel confident in your approach?[8]  For teams that want a little extra “oomph” in their handling of COVID-19-related accommodations requests, here is some law:

First, here is the language from New York’s Executive Order 202.34, regarding the ability of businesses to require and enforce the use of masks:

Business operators and building owners, and those authorized on their behalf shall have the discretion to ensure compliance with the directive in Executive Order 202.17 (requiring any individual over age two, and able to medically tolerate a face-covering, be required to cover their nose and mouth with a mask or cloth face-covering when in a public place), including the discretion to deny admittance to individuals who fail to comply with the directive in Executive Order 202.17 or to require or compel their removal if they fail to adhere to such directive, and such owner or operator shall not be subject to a claim of violation of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, or frustration of purpose, solely due to their enforcement of such directive. Nothing in this directive shall prohibit or limit the right of State and local enforcement authorities from imposing fines or other penalties for any violation of the directive in Executive Order 202.17.  This directive shall be applied in a manner consistent with the American with Disabilities Act or any provision of either New York State or New York City Human Rights Law, or any other provision of law.

As reviewed in Step 6, “consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act,” does not mean that those who cannot medically wear a mask are automatically allowed maskless entry as an ADA accommodation.  Rather, a place must see if the risk posed to the public by the maskless individual can be mitigated by a “reasonable” accommodation.  For libraries that can have a mask-free zone, they can be.  For a tiny library where any breath will land on circulating materials, it likely cannot. 

The key to doing this right is thoughtful assessment and documentation: replying to ADA requests should not be a gut-check exercise.  It should be considered, thoughtful, and documented as shown in steps 3 through 6.  Whenever possible, a library assessing accommodations request should consult a lawyer.

Second, here is a pep talk from the US Department of Justice, the body who enforces ADA:

The Department of Justice Warns of Inaccurate Flyers and Postings Regarding the Use of Face Masks and the Americans with Disabilities Act

Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Eric Dreiband reiterated today that cards and other documents bearing the Department of Justice seal and claiming that individuals are exempt from face mask requirements are fraudulent.

Inaccurate flyers or other postings have been circulating on the web and via social media channels regarding the use of face masks and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Many of these notices included use of the Department of Justice seal and ADA phone number.

As the Department has stated in a previous alert, the Department did not issue and does not endorse them in any way. The public should not rely on the information contained in these postings.

The ADA does not provide a blanket exemption to people with disabilities from complying with legitimate safety requirements necessary for safe operations.
The public can visit ADA.gov or call the ADA Information Line at 800-514-0301 (voice) and 800-514-0383 (TTY) for more information.

[emphasis added]

So, while ADA, or the disability protections of the New York Human Rights law, most certainly could apply to a person denied access to a covered institution, as can be seen, it’s just not that simple.  If your library builds out the ADA provisions of its safety plan, listens to ADA-related requests carefully, and assesses them promptly, you can feel confident that you are doing your best to provide ADA access.  And if you have the slightest uncertainty about any of those steps, you should contact a lawyer.

However, having seen how these things go, here is a final thought: people who are making ADA requests can feel vulnerable.  It can be scary to admit a disability; it is an act of trust to request accommodations.  On the flip side, many people with disabilities have learned their rights, and fight for them as warriors.  Many parents of children with disabilities have learned to be ardent advocates. 

All of this can create tension (at any already tense time).  So any ADA request, no matter what the tone or context, should be met with a simple “I hear this request.  We will work on this as quickly as possible.  This is important to us.”  Then get the answer, and document it, taking care to not let too much time pass.

Thank you for an important question.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

I appreciate this question, because it gives me a chance to make an important clarification:

As they prepare to re-open and re-welcome the public for summer 2020, libraries and other chartered entities DO NOT need “disclaimers”[1] to combat alleged responsibility for employee and patron cases of COVID-19. Instead, they need:

• a WRITTEN SAFETY PLAN (customized to their own operations);
• SIGNAGE and other documentation to enforce the Plan; and
• Clear and consistent ENFORCEMENT.

Why is that?  Because limiting liability for the transmission of disease is not the same as limiting liability for riding a roller coaster.

Liability based on infection/illness is based on either 1) the intentional act of deliberately spreading infection (for instance, someone with COVID-19 deliberately spitting on someone); or 2) the negligent act of not doing what you were reasonably supposed to do, and thus causing a heightened risk of harm (for instance, someone mistakenly using the wrong product to clean a high-traffic surface).

When it comes to a person allegedly getting COVID at a library, no disclaimer will reduce liability for either type of action. What is needed, instead, is to show that the library has taken all reasonable steps to protect the safety of employees and the public.  That is the key to limiting liability.

This can only be done via a Safety Plan based on guidance from NYSDOH, OSHA and the CDC.   Since a Plan is only good if the planners follow it, signage[2] promoting adherence to the Plan, through consistent and well-documented enforcement, is also critical.

I am emphasizing a written Safety Plan not only because the State is requiring them, but because in New York, disclaimers, waivers, and “At Your Own Risk” notices are only effective under precise circumstances. 

For instance, an insurance carrier can refuse coverage based on a properly worded disclaimer.  A sky-diving company can avoid liability for a customer’s heart attack with a waiver.  But the insurance disclaimer still won’t void the liability of the insured, and the waiver won’t work if the damage is caused by a sky-diving instructor’s willful action.   The enforceability of such documents depends on the circumstances.

What DOES guard against liability for transmission of disease is showing that a library 1) identified appropriate safety practices confirmed by a recognized authority; 2) uniformly and consistently enforced those practices.  In that approach, signage alerting people to the risk of transmission (and requiring adherence to rules to minimize it), is part of that “uniform and consistent” enforcement.

Which brings me to the hard truth I have to emphasize:

If your library can’t 1) identify appropriate safety practices confirmed by a recognized authority as reducing transmission of COVID-19; and can’t 2) uniformly and consistently enforce those practices, your library should not operate.  No waiver or legal document will protect it if basic safety practices are not identified and enforced.

Now, all that said, as part of its “consistent and uniform enforcement” of safety practices, a library could decide to ask each patron to review and sign a document like this:

The ABC library is now open for [insert limited services].  To ensure consistent use of appropriate safety practices, please review and agree to the following practices before entering, which will apply until the board determines otherwise:

I agree to wear a mask at all times in the library; if I am medically unable to wear a mask, I will call the library at [##########] to arrange reasonable accommodations.

I will sanitize my hands prior to entry at the station provided by the library.

I will avoid touching my face and mask while in the library's premises.

I will abide by any other safety-related requests by library staff.

I will [insert your library’s specific requirements, as stated in the Safety Plan].

I understand that these practices are currently the rules of the library and they are being enforced both for my safety and that of the public as currently advised by the Center for Disease Control.

Signed: ________________________

This type of signed “acknowledgement” is one way to show that people have been notified that these are unusual times in the library, and that entering the premises may bring more than the usual risk.  That said, this approach is not an “acceptance of risk” document, disclaimer, or liability waiver.  For the reasons stated above, those approaches really aren’t what’s needed for the simple resumption of library activity.  What is needed is a Safety Plan.

Of course, if your library decides that aside from resuming some modified operations, it would like to host some inherently hazardous activities (riding a mechanical bull,[3] digging a community garden with heavy equipment, printing Jarts on the 3-D printer) a waiver is a good idea.  But for resumption of activities while the country is still fighting COVID-19, your Safety Plan is the key.

Thanks for a great question.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

The need to migrate ceremonies online has created a tsunami of copyright concerns.  What is a ceremony without the right music?  But this question pertains specifically to high school graduations for public schools, so we’ll confine it to those institutions.

Readers, I have to be real with you: a newly minted Supreme Court Case, Allen v. Cooper[1], means public high schools (which are arms of the state) are arguably immune from liability for copyright infringement.  In that case, the court invalidated the “Copyright Remedy Clarification Act (“CRCA”), which had expressly removed state’s “sovereign immunity” to a copyright suit. So on a very pragmatic level, some public schools, colleges, and universities may be adding that to their risk assessment of questions like this.

But professional educators likely don’t want to do the wrong thing simply because they are arguably immune from being punished for it.  As Justice Kagan, writing in Allen and quoting an expert witness put it: “what State, after all, would “want [] to get a reputation as a copyright pirate?”   So we’ll proceed just as the member’s question suggests: that they want to do the right thing.

With that in mind, here is my answer to the question: “[T]he students would like to have songs from “High School Musical” added to the slideshow. Is this possible?

My first bit of guidance is to check the school district’s license with either ASCAP or BMI (this is the license that covers permission to play music at a high school dance). It may be that some streaming rights got thrown into your public performance license. This isn't typical, but you never know, and if you have the right clause in your contract your problem could be solved right away (and in fact, your problem never existed).

If there isn't a contract that already gives your school permission to use the song(s) as the member describes, your school needs permission. This can be done through any number of licensing agencies.

As but one example, the music to “High School Musical” is available for licensed streaming through the Harry Fox Agency:

(As can be seen, your school could even decide to use the karaoke version.)

The bad news is that it’s sort of a pain to obtain the license; you have to register and there is a fee.  Further information can be found at the link here: https://secure.harryfox.com/songfile/faq.jsp#faq2.

[NOTE: since a school district is one legal entity, it is also good to check and see if the district itself has an account already.  Signing up for a service like this does not need to be done on a school-by-school basis. Of course, this brings us to school policy and procurement issues, and for that, I refer to the attorneys serving the BOCES that serves your school!]

I hope the red tape doesn’t get in the way of the students having a good ceremony.  They have been through enough this semester.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

The short answer

This answer is being written on May 28th, 2020.

At this time, in addition to Executive Order 202 issued on March 7, 2020 and declaring a state of emergency in New York through September 7th, 2020, there are 30 Executive Orders.

These Executive Orders create temporary modifications to a wide and ever-increasing array of state law and regulations. They have impacted elections, public health practices, landlord tenant relations, and countless operations of the New York State justice system.

However, as of this date, there has been no modification of section 4509 of the state Civil Procedure Law and Rules (“CPLR”), which, with only very limited exceptions, bars third-party access to a user’s library records.

Therefore, at this time, any library receiving a request from a third party for confidential library records, even if in relation to contract tracing efforts, should follow the same procedure they do for all other third-party requests: require a subpoena or judicial order.

The same answer, but with more information and analysis

I am grateful to the member for posing this question, because not only is it important to have clarity on this precise issue, it is important for information management professionals across the state of New York, including some of New York's most trusted information professionals — librarians — to be thinking about the impact and finer points of contact tracing.

So what is “contact tracing”?

The Centers for Disease Control describes contract tracing this way on their current COVID-19 response page^[1]:

“In contact tracing, public health staff work with a patient to help them recall everyone with whom they have had close contact during the timeframe while they may have been infectious.  Public health staff then warn these exposed individuals (contacts) of their potential exposure as rapidly and sensitively as possible.”

After declaring COVID-19 a “communicable disease” as defined by the state’s Public Health Law, New York began using contact tracing to combat COVID-19.^[2]  Local health departments led the way, organizing information and coordinating warnings within their jurisdiction, an initiative that inspired the previous question referenced by the member.

With the adoption of “New York Forward,” 30 contact tracers for every 100,000 residents is one of the express metrics^[3] being used to establish when one of the state’s ten regions is ready to begin a phased reopening.  So, every region will be recruiting and deploying “tracers” to gather information and issue warnings to individuals who testing has confirmed have been exposed to COVID-19.

While emphasizing that such warnings must be issued “rapidly,” the CDC’s guidelines for contact tracing also emphasize privacy:

“To protect patient privacy, contacts are only informed that they may have been exposed to a patient with the infection. They are not told the identity of the patient who may have exposed them.”

The State of New York, however, does not require this level of confidentiality in its laws regarding quarantine, notification of infection, and contact tracing related to most communicable diseases.  While the precise regulations governing the use of contact tracing to fight the spread of HIV require the consent of the patient, the regulations applying to COVID-19 do not have similar requirements.^[4] Nor is such information regarded as protected health information (“PHI”) under HIPAA.

I am highlighting these considerations not to denigrate contact tracing, which has been documented as effective in combating pandemics. However, as of this writing, as reported by The New York Times, many in authority, or with credibility in the arenas of privacy and data security, have expressed serious concerns regarding the procurement and arrangement of the software and personnel that will be used in this massive public health initiative.

Caution about privacy, even during times of emergency, is a good thing.

With all that, the collaborative, community health-focused approach I outlined on March 19, 2020, in https://www.wnylrc.org/ask-the-lawyer/raqs/122 is one I continue to endorse.

In addition to that approach, here is a suggested reply in the event your library is contacted by a state-employed contact tracer, designed to work with your standard protocol for complying with 4509:

[After verifying credentials]

We know your work is critical to public health.  Please send us a written list of what you need, and we will work to obtain consent from our users, as required by CPLR 4509.  In the alternative, please ensure what you need is very thoroughly set forth in a duly issued subpoena or judicial order.  Our library will work to expedite your request as soon as we know we are authorized to do so.

One final point

After conducting the research set forth in this answer, it is my opinion that CPLR 4509’s assurance of the confidentiality of library records is not at odds with the current emergency measures our state is taking to protect lives and get our world back on track. 

First, it is critical to remember that under 4509, a person may give their written consent to disclosure.  Many people, upon learning they might pose a danger, will give their express and voluntary consent, if they have the capacity at the time.  That is their right, and there is no concern with your library contacting them to ask the question.

Second, if the need for confidential library records is truly critical, local board of health officials—and the tracers who will be helping their localities—can invoke the authority created by the public health law^[5] to obtain duly authorized subpoenas. 

Unlike many other laws and regulations, CPLR 4509 can remain as written, while New York undertakes an unprecedented, massive effort to conduct contact tracing, and protect public health.  

Thank you for an important question.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

Life is full of surprises.  When I was in third grade, I was surprised to learn that this strange country called “Canada” occupied the upper half of North America.  When I was in fifteen, I was surprised to learn that “brooch” rhymes with “roach.”^[1]  And upon researching the answer to this question, I was surprised to learn that Zoom doesn’t have an “exclusive use” clause in their service agreement.^[2]

Now, let me be clear, the Zoom “Terms of Use,” most certainly bar simply enabling a “third” party to use a library’s account.  Here is the clause that does that:

You may not offer or enable any third parties to use the Services purchased by You, display on any website or otherwise publish the Services or any Content obtained from a Service (other than Content created by You) or otherwise generate income from the Services or use the Services for the development, production or marketing of a service or product substantially similar to the Services.