A primary focus of the meeting was the trustees’ examination of the collection development policy, particularly in response to repeated challenges against library materials. A proposed amendment suggested that once a title has undergone a reconsideration process, it should not be reconsidered for the following three years. This proposed change aims to prevent repetitive challenges. The director shared insights from a recent situation in a neighboring town where a book was challenged repeatedly within a short timeframe. The three-year reconsideration period was suggested based on recommendations from a webinar and is intended to maintain a balance between addressing challenges and protecting the library’s mission of intellectual freedom. Trustees were invited to express their opinions on the proposed amendment, though no immediate feedback was noted, and the matter remains under consideration.

The meeting also addressed the programming policy, which is designed to parallel the collection development policy. Concerns were raised about the phrasing regarding attendee confidentiality, particularly the statement that program presenters may ask attendees to voluntarily provide their names. The need for clarity on the voluntary nature of providing names was highlighted to ensure consistency with the library’s mission and values.

In addition to these policy discussions, the trustees explored the potential implementation of trigger warnings for library programs. A trustee suggested that while not explicitly stated in current policy, procedural means could be established to ensure trigger warnings are included when necessary. This consideration stems from the recognition that some programs might contain material that could be distressing to attendees. The trustees agreed that it would be prudent for staff to evaluate whether content might require a warning, noting that the library’s sponsorship of programs does not equate to an endorsement of the content presented.

Age-appropriate programming also became a point of discussion, with a trustee expressing discomfort regarding adults attending children’s programs without accompanying children. This led to a broader conversation on how the library handles age restrictions and the need to clarify age ranges in program descriptions to avoid confusion. Trustees considered creating tailored content for younger audiences.

The meeting further delved into the organization of library employees into a union, with a trustee expressing interest in understanding the dynamics and negotiations involved. The union, represented by ASME, includes most library staff, though certain positions such as pages, the assistant director, the archivist, and the bookkeeper are not covered by the union agreement. Trustees agreed to distribute copies of the union contract for review in future meetings, acknowledging the importance of being informed about the union’s stipulations for potential future discussions.

In other business, the director reported on budget discussions with the interim town manager and finance director, emphasizing the calculation methods used to determine state aid eligibility. The library received approval for its first state aid allotment award amounting to $366,866.94, with another disbursement expected in the spring. This state aid had seen a 14% budget increase this year, contributing positively to library funding. Discrepancies in how the tech warrant money was reported were also discussed, with plans to ensure accurate accounting moving forward. The director noted that the minimum budget requirements to qualify for state aid were articulated as $1,622,130 without the tech warrant, and $1,631,696 including it.

Discussions also covered union-related salary increases, highlighting a 2.5% raise for the next three years as per the union contract. An upcoming compensation and classification survey for library staff was discussed, with potential adjustments based on the survey results that might necessitate back pay from July 1 if needed.