A final vote on Pine-Richland’s controversial library policy is in sight after another contentious meeting Feb. 24 set the stage for a third and final read of the proposed rule changes.
The three-hour meeting was the latest in a series of often embittered discussions during which community members have lashed out against what they say amounts to a “book ban.”
The new policy would place the final power to add or remove district library books in the hands of the school board rather than the Pine-Richland superintendent.
Previously, the district formed a committee for the review of 14 books challenged by parents in 2023, many of which focused on LGBTQ characters.
The committee offered recommendations to Superintendent Brian Miller, who ultimately recommended that the titles remain. Last year, board members started to revise the library policy to give themselves the final say on school books. The Feb. 24 meeting was the most recent stage of that revision process.
The policy went forward despite the best efforts of Ashley Fortier, who offered motions to revise aspects of the Library Resources policy. Often a minority on the board, each of Fortier’s motions were successively voted down 5-4.
Fortier sought to shorten a 30-day notice period for new library materials during which parents or community members might raise potential challenges to works, saying it created a “barrier” to student access. Though she asked for input from other board members for a potentially shorter window, there appeared to be no appetite among the board majority.
When Fortier moved to eliminate the notice period entirely, she was voted down. She next moved to eliminate the “Avoiding Educationally Unsuitable Material” section of the policy because of what she called ill-defined terms such as “classic art” or “sexual acts.”
The board, Fortier said, lacked the expertise to judge potentially challenged texts.
“We know what librarians bring to the table because they have certifications; they have educations. What do we bring to the table? And how can people trust that we’re being transparent?” Fortier said.
Nearly 45 minutes into the discussion, Marc Casciani, though he consistently voted for Fortier’s motions, said he doubted any progress would be made in further revisions. The longtime board member said it was likely “nothing (Fortier) suggested” would be approved.
The meeting, like its lengthy predecessors, brought out numerous community members and about two dozen speakers during public comments.
While those present seemed to represent a unified block of opposition against the board majority, a significant number of community members phoned in to the meeting to express their support of the board’s focus on “parental rights.” This led to a back and forth between in-person critics and call-in supporters during comment periods.
Elise Duckworth, an active Pine-Richland junior who created a petition demanding the board to reverse its current policy revisions, said she was encouraged by a recent meeting with board members.
Duckworth, in addition to seniors Jake Pazin and Tiffany Gathers, met with Lisa Hillman and Phillip Morrissette, board majority members, in a meeting moderated by Pine-Richland High School Principal Frank Hernandez. Duckworth said the gathering was “a positive step in the right direction” and she hopes for more discussions in the future.
Though she said she was committed to implementing board policy, Pine-Richland librarian Beth Shenefiel said she was concerned the new policy violated students’ First Amendment rights and would “hinder library operations.” Shenefiel also criticized the notice period and urged the board to include district librarians in further discussions.
“The proposed policy’s unclear language, excessive procedural delays and content restrictions risk compromising our core mission,” Shenefiel said.
Nedda Immen, another active Pine-Richland student, said she understood the board majority’s “overarching goal,” but she asked them to find middle ground before proceeding further.
The senior said the board majority’s opinions were valuable but said they must consider the thoughts of students and community members as well.
“By implementing the policy that’s currently being revised, you’re imposing a restriction. And this restriction, as we’ve seen, doesn’t leave room for a compromise, it doesn’t acknowledge the diverse views in this community and it creates division not understanding,” Immen said.
Featured Local Businesses
But in moving forward with the policy in a 5-4 vote, it is unclear whether the board majority and community will find any “middle ground.”
Christina Brussalis, Leslie Miller, Michael Wiethorn, Morrissette and Hillman voted to approve the second read, advancing the policy into what will likely be a final vote. Amy Terchick, Fortier, Casciani and Joseph Cassidy voted against it.
The school board’s next voting meeting is March 17. If the board approves a third read, the policy would immediately go into effect.