Joint Legislative Committee

Alabama State House, Suite 207

11 South Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130

cc:

Director Othni Lathram, LSA Director

Sen. Greg Albritton Rep. Anthony Daniels
Sen. Clyde Chambliss Rep. Chris Pringle
Sen. Donnie Chesteen Rep. David Faulkner
Sen. Vivian Figures Rep. Danny Garrett
Sen. Sam Givhan Rep. Nathaniel Ledbetter
Sen. Steve Livingston Rep. Joe Lovvorn
Sen. Arthur Orr Rep. Mary Moore
Sen. Greg Reed Rep. Rex Reynolds
Sen. Bobby Singleton Rep. Randall Shedd
Sen. Rodger Smitherman Rep. Scott Stadthagen

Dear Sirs and Madams:

Read Freely Alabama is formally requesting that you, along with your colleagues on the Legislative
Council, disapprove the proposed rule for the libraries based on the Alabama Public Library Service
(APLS) not providing sufficient notice of the rule change, per Alabama Code rulemaking requirements.
[Relevant codes are as follows: Rule in question to be changed: Library Establishment, Policy And
Service Requirements 520-2-2-.03, and Rulemaking Process found at: AL Code 41-22 (2023)]

The APLS started the process of rule changes and went through a comment period, but now they are
erroneously amending the rules with new language that was not provided in the notice. The stakeholders
in the industry had no chance to review the new language, or ask questions and seek clarification before it
was passed on May 16. After the changed proposal was released, it appears the new language has created
contradictory rules between itself and the original proposed language. Additionally, on the "Certification
of Administrative Rules Filed with the Legislative Services Agency" they have not included reasoning as
to why they did not incorporate public comment, as is required by regulations.
As you may know, per AL Code S 41-22-23(g) (2023) there is established criteria the Joint Council must
consider in determining whether to approve or disapprove proposed rules. I have included the criteria,
along with my reasoning why to disapprove these rules, below:

(1) Is there a statutory authority for the proposed rule?

Answer: No. The Alabama Public Library Service did not give at least 35 days notice of intended action
during which interested persons may present their views, per AL Code 41-22-5(a)(1). The library agency
gave an initial notice in the January 2024 Legislative Services Filing, but then the APLS substantially
changed the language from what was provided in the notice and did not provide new notice with new
opportunity for public comment. Additionally, they have not included reasoning as to why they did not
incorporate public comment, as is required by regulations.

(2) Would the absence of the rule or rules significantly harm or endanger the public health, safety,
or welfare?
Answer: No. This is a situation where the absence of the rule is preferred and less restrictive than the
proposed rule. Making polarized, political changes to the library inventory, as the new rule attempts to do,
endangers the public's access to free speech under the first amendment. Thus, enacting the rule would
endanger the public welfare.

(3) Is there a reasonable relationship between the state's police power and the protection of the
public health, safety, or welfare?
Answer: Yes. Alabama, as a state in the United States of America, has a duty to uphold the first
amendment of the United States Constitution. The amended rules represent a challenge to the First
Amendment rights of Alabama residents. It is incumbent upon the state to enforce the First Amendment
and ensure that these rules do not restrict the constitutional rights of Alabamians to choose reading
material for themselves and their families. The danger to the First Amendment is seen primarily in the
usage of overbroad and vague terms, specifically when discussing material “inappropriate” for children or
youth. If not revised, this rule could allow for the removal or relocation of age-appropriate material due to
individual groups’ ideological or personal beliefs.

(4) Is there another, less restrictive method of regulation available that could adequately protect the
public?
Answer: Yes. During the public comment period, APLS received 1600 signed letters from Alabama
librarians and verified Alabama residents that supported a less restrictive alternative: the public librarians'
counterproposal. This provides safeguards for unsupervised minors, requires policies on material location
and relocation, and agrees with the Gov. Ivey’s request about funds spent on ALA. Public speakers
supported this counterproposal at the APLS Public Hearing, applauding the good-faith and reasonable
suggestions it proposed.

(5) Does the rule or do the rules have the effect of directly or indirectly increasing the costs of any
goods or services involved and, if so, to what degree?
Answer:
Yes. To ensure compliance by Oct. 1st, which starts the new funding year, Alabama libraries will need to
immediately start implementing these changes and they will cause serious effects.
First, all library staff and resources will be redirected to analyzing, cataloging, and relocating children’s
and youth material. Without any knowledge or clarity, libraries are predicting they’ll have to temporarily
close to the public, with some understaffed rural libraries anticipating ceasing public services for
months.

Second, a significant amount of wages ($4000-$6000 x one employee x month) will be spent on
complying to this new language, instead of directly serving the taxpaying resident.

Third, several library boards will need additional funds from their municipal or county officials to ensure
designated physical space for minors under 19 years old, with appropriate “safeguards” to ensure they are
not in areas with “inappropriate” content.

Fourth, several libraries will need to purchase new ILS to allow for tiered library cards. This software can
cost $15,000+ and will require devoted training and attention to implement.

Fifth, the vague and overbroad language in these changes would increase the chance of lawsuits, which
will increase insurance costs for public libraries, leading to reduced services. APLS Board Chair Ron
Snider alluded to this threat when he abstained.

(6) Is the increase in cost, if any, more harmful to the public than the harm that might result from
the absence of the rule or rules?
Answer: Yes. According to APLS Chair Ron Snider, who abstained from voting on these last-minute
amendments, there is no “wide-spread” issue with Alabama libraries; research shows that only 3% of
Alabama libraries had challenges, with less than 1% of registered library patrons challenging material.

The public will be greatly harmed by these rules, losing their taxes to expensive and pointless
construction projects, suffering the loss of regular activities and material access, and possibly being
temporarily denied library access and services if their library temporarily closes to complete projects that
attempts to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.

(7) Are all facets of the rulemaking process designed solely for the purpose of, and so they have, as
their primary effect, the protection of the public?
Answer: No. The rulemaking process has been politicized by the removal of a longstanding library board
member, and replacement of that person with a politically motivated person whose votes are skewing the
will of the majority of Alabamians. In addition, attempting to make additional changes to the library
regulations without undergoing the full rulemaking process, which would include additional notice, is
circumventing the rulemaking process and does not protect the public.

Please work with the Legislative Services Agency (LSA) to disapprove changes to 520-2-2-.03 and have
the proposed changes be sent through the established rulemaking process. This process, per the
established administrative procedures, should include: notice of intended action posted on the LSA's
website in the Administrative Monthly, at least 35 days where interested persons may present their views,
the APLS considering fully all submissions, and upon adoption of a rule, if conflicting views are
submitted, the APLS should issue a concise statement of the principal reasons for and against its adoption,
incorporating its reasons for overruling any considerations.

Read Freely Alabama appreciates your attention to this matter. Please feel free to contact us to discuss
more.

Sincerely,
Read Freely Alabama Sr. Leadership
readfreelyalabama@gmail.com