Please join me in voting for two new candidates, Michael Terry and Brian Curry, running for positions on The Board of Library Trustees (BOLT). As an elected board, BOLT is responsible for “selection of Library materials and shall have custody and management of the library and of all property of the Town related thereto.” Also, “All money or property that the Town may receive on behalf of the library by gift or bequest shall be administered by the Board.” Embedded in the above are the responsibility for setting policy and ensuring the library director and staff follow these policies and implement BOLT decisions.
While I will always acknowledge the commitment of our Residents that volunteer to serve on boards, committees and commissions, there are several questions that in my opinion have not been addressed by BOLT in a manner consistent with how all other town government entities operate. They include:
- Why is BOLT the only elected board whose meetings are not available on-line and/or recorded?
This question was raised by Michael and Brian at the recent RCTV Candidate night forum. Every other elected board, and many appointed boards, are available for virtual participation and are recorded. Meeting packages are provided in advance and available for members and the community. BOLT operations are inconsistent with the rest of the town. Why?
- Why do we not have a specific account of funds provided by the Friends of Reading Library (and other non-profit groups) at the request of the library and details of how those funds are used?
We know that the Friends of the Reading Library and the Reading Library Foundation have funds that are used to directly pay for Library expenses (programs, etc.). When asked at recent FINCOM meeting, the library director indicated that amount could be in the $30k-$50k range. It does not appear that a full accounting of those donations is readily available. Why?
- Why does the library not require those that volunteer to work in the library or who run programs attended by children under the age of 18 to undergo a CORI check?
Any adult (especially parents) in Reading knows that if they want to volunteer with their children’s school, be a soccer coach, be a scout leader, or even a volunteer minister at church, they must undergo a CORI check. While Library paid staff are CORI’ed, this does not appear to be true for all that come to the library to run a program or for all volunteers who work in the library. In today’s environment, it’s simply common sense that a CORI check should be a requirement for anyone running a program with children in attendance. After further research, it appears that the Library may in fact be in violation of Mass General Law, Part 1, Title II, Chapter 6, Section 172H which states: “any entity or organization primarily engaged in providing activities or programs to children 18 years of age or less, shall obtain all available criminal offender record information from the department prior to accepting any person as an employee, volunteer, vendor or contractor” I would argue programs offered in the children’s room and teens section would clearly fall under this. It has also been determined that many of our peer communities also CORI check at least their volunteers (including, but not limited to Woburn, Winchester, Wilmington, Melrose, Malden, Burlington, Bedford, Tewksbury, Chelmsford, Dracut, and Canton). If it turns out that the library is in violation of state law, this would be the second instance in recent history where a Reading Public library policy was found to be in conflict with state law. Because it is the job of our library trustees to help enact library policies that comply with state law, we need to elect trustees who prioritize fidelity to state laws.
- Why did it take so long for the Library to collaborate with Elder Services and offer space for Senior programming?
When the Library was renovated and the plan for the large community room made public, the discussion was that this would be a resource that the community could use for other activities. While it has certainly been used for a variety of meetings, it isn’t clear just how much it is used and why such a resource isn’t managed better for overall community and town use. More collaboration with other organizations, including town departments, could result in programs that help to communicate how to access available services and present on topics that are relevant to the community.
- Why doesn’t the Policy for “Request for Reconsideration of Materials” include more guidance for the process?
As you may know, the library has a policy where a concerned citizen may request materials in the library collection be reconsidered. This policy, while it does include a form for submitting the information, lacks additional details including: what should be done with the book during the time before the meeting itself, how long should the library be given to review the request, notice requirements to the community of such a request, and provision of information to be used to make such a decision. The issue of reconsideration requests was raised during the recent RCTV candidate night. While I, like Brian Curry and Michael Terry, do not support book banning, it seems that these types of requests will continue to be presented, and BOLT and the library should provide more transparency to this process.
I have been a supporter of the library, voted for the debt exclusions and advocated for the investment. I am disappointed that the questions I raise above even have to be asked. As a result, it is time for a change to BOLT. Michael Terry and Brian Curry are committed to transparency and holding the library accountable to the voters. They also share the view that our library is a valuable town resource and are committed to continue to improve reach and access. Please join me in voting for them this election day, Tuesday, April 4th, or during early voting available March 27-30th at Town Hall.
Respectfully Submitted,
John Sasso
Richards Rd
