The meeting concentrated heavily on Policy 66.5, which governs the selection and reconsideration of library materials. Discussions were particularly focused on Section Five, which outlines the criteria for selecting these materials. The existing language allowed for materials to be chosen if they met standards in only one category, such as readability. However, some members raised concerns that this low threshold might compromise the quality of the library collection. It was suggested that the language be amended to require materials to meet the criteria in two or more categories to ensure a more robust selection process.

Participants emphasized the importance of balancing readability with high-interest materials, especially for early childhood and elementary education. The proposal to modify the language received widespread support, with members agreeing that it would better address the diverse needs of students and enhance the quality of library materials. This consensus marked a step towards ensuring that library collections are both engaging and educationally valuable.

Attention then shifted to Section Seven, which handles the reconsideration of specific library materials. Here, the conversation centered on the composition of the Review Committee responsible for evaluating requests for reconsideration. Concerns were voiced that the committee was heavily weighted towards district staff, with limited representation from the community and parents. Some participants suggested removing restrictions that prevent individuals with direct connections to the reconsideration requests from serving on the committee, arguing that this could appear disrespectful toward community concerns and compromise impartiality.

Despite these discussions, the committee ultimately chose to retain the original language concerning the Review Committee’s composition. The decision was framed as a temporary compromise, with the option to revisit the policy in the future, given that it is subject to review every three years.

The issue of committee composition extended beyond the Review Committee, with debate over the balance between school-affiliated members and community representation. The existing structure comprises nine members, seven of whom are directly connected to the school. Suggestions were made to adjust this structure to include more community voices, advocating for a composition of five school-connected members and four from the community. This proposal aimed to ensure that the perspectives of taxpayers and voters are adequately represented.

A consensus was sought on modifying the committee’s structure to better reflect community involvement, with ideas including the inclusion of two parents specifically. However, concerns were raised about the practicality of finding willing parents due to their other commitments. The discussion remained open, with an acknowledgment of the potential need for flexibility in committee membership to accommodate diverse viewpoints.

Further deliberations focused on the reconsideration process for library materials, particularly the eligibility of community members to participate. The current policy allows school district employees, students, and parents or guardians to request reconsideration, but some participants argued for the inclusion of community members. This change was seen as a way to recognize the interests of the broader community while ensuring that only district residents could participate.

The committee also discussed the potential implications of these policy changes, including a possible increase in requests for reconsideration reviews, which occur infrequently but could strain committee resources. Participants expressed a willingness to revisit this topic in future meetings if necessary.

The meeting also covered policy 66.5’s Section 72d and the Review Committee’s structure. A suggestion was made to replace the term “shall” with “may” in the policy, but concerns about potential legal complications kept the original wording in place. The topic of compensating committee members was also broached, with the idea that payment might increase participation. Various logistics were discussed, such as establishing an hourly pay rate and whether compensation should cover both reading and meeting attendance.

Student representation on the committee was another focal point, with criteria clarified to require that student representatives be currently enrolled in the high school and at least 18 years old.

As the meeting concluded, a motion to approve sending the revised policy 66.5 to the school board passed unanimously. Anticipation of further discussion at the school board level was noted, with the expectation that the policy may undergo additional revisions. The next meeting was scheduled for December 3, 2024.