What’s Happening in York County Library (SC) Should Be A Wakeup Call

It’s not just books at stake with the rise of censorship. It is the entirety of public-owned goods. We’ve seen where and how school boards have been infiltrated by special interests and how those same interests have worked their way into state legislature by way of advocating for school voucher schemes that rob public schools of taxpayer money. What happens at the schools, of course, doesn’t stop there. Similar tactics of mis- and dis- information and ousting of qualified board members in favor of right-wing interests have been hitting public libraries, too.

Last week, York County Library in South Carolina released a statement, pictured below, across their website and social media accounts. It explained that due to a new proviso in the state budget, the library board would place a moratorium on purchasing any items for the collection meant for those under the age of 18.

Posted by the Board Chair, the statement made clear the rift on the board: four members voted in favor of pausing purchases while three others, including Witte, voted against the motion. The board’s seven members, reduced by county leadership from a more robust board of 10 members in May 2023, have split votes again and again and again–including at the special meeting called for October 16, 2024 following the release of and reaction to the statement. You can rely on four to go one way and three to go another. That’s what happens when you reduce the size of a board; you can create a simple majority.

Following the news being posted about the book purchasing moritorium, the community was not only surprised. They were confused and many prepared to show up at the next scheduled board meeting on November. However, the board elected to instead call a special meeting for days later on October 16. They posted the notice and minutes in compliance with open meeting laws.

The special meeting began with District Five representative Timothy Steele asking that the minutes from the October 10 meeting be amended. Rather than stating there was a moratorium on all materials purchased for those under 18, he stated the language as proposed in the meeting was instead that there was a moratorium only on any material for those under 18 that included “sexual content.” The motion was seconded. Steele, it should come as no surprise, is an active member of the York County GOP and has rubbed elbows with the likes of the county’s local Moms For Liberty chapter. His term on the public library board began in September, and he was appointed by the county alongside two of his fellow board members who vote as a block.

Immediately following that call, board member Wendi Michael, representing District One, stated that she felt she was being gaslit. She had voted against the original motion to suspend purchases of material for minors because she felt the decision was too broad. A lengthy discussion then followed about what was–or was not–actually voted on in the initial meeting.

York County Library’s board retained no recordings of the meeting, either in audio or in video. Instead, the meeting minutes were taken by hand by two individuals not sitting on the board, both of whom had down in the notes that the vote the board took at the October 10 meeting was about a moratorium on the purchase of all books for those under 18, not just books which contained “sexual content.” No copies of the motion voted upon at that meeting were shared with all members of the board. The board had no official secretary, and thus, relied on the pages of handwritten notes by volunteers.

Witte’s statement released following the meeting came from what was recorded in those minutes at the meeting. Steele’s new motion, to strike the motion from the previous record and amend it to state only books with “sexual content” were on hold from purchase while waiting for more direction from the State, passed. Again, the vote was 4-3.

As the special meeting proceeded, Carol Herring from District Six was elected secretary to record meeting minutes. Herring is part of the majority and voted in favor of the original full moratorium, as well as the amended proposal. In addition to instituting a secretary to record minutes, the board would also have the meetings recorded on audio. Another series of back and forth discussions about recording meetings took place. Where would they go? Who would be responsible? How would they follow the law and make those available to the public? In other words, because they hadn’t recorded meetings prior, they never had to consider making anything from the meetings public beyond what was submitted in board packets, board agendas, and the prior meeting’s minutes, which are posted once approved at the next meeting.

Then Steele returned with a new proposal: any and all press releases from the board need full board approval before they can be distributed. This was a direct response to Witte posting the decision about the moratorium following the October 10 meeting–Steele emphasized that she was not authorized by the majority of the board to disseminate such a statement.

Witte responded that she worked with the director to craft the statement in the interest of transparency of the board. This has been the historical precedent, where the board chair works with the director when an important decision has been made that impacts the public to get the word out as efficiently and effectively as possible. Because the moratorium was effective immediately upon the vote on October 10, it was in the interest of serving the public the statement be made as soon as possible. Witte noted that it can be difficult to get board members to check and respond to text messages in a timely manner, let alone to put together a statement. What she wrote with the director was nothing more or less than what was decided at the meeting.

The final item on the agenda for the special meeting, proposed by the newly appointed secretary Herring, covered the issue of who gets to release a statement on behalf of the board. The item involved not just who could speak on behalf of a board’s decision but also asked that Witte release an apology for the statement and proposed that she be rebuked and censured for her action. But historical protocol and procedure had been that when a statement to the public is deemed necessary, the chair and library director would craft something together. Steele was angry about this, pointing out several times that he responded to the statement via email four hours after it was posted. He believed he and the rest of the board should have been involved in the process.

At this point, a member of the audience asked if they could speak and were told no. They spoke anyway, noting that this was a disgraceful personal attack on Witte and that Steele was “a bully, the biggest bully I’ve ever seen.” Once they were silenced, the proposal was amended, removing the requirement that Witte be rebuked and censured for posting the press release. The board then voted in favor of a new policy to require approval of the entire board before any messaging is shared with the public.

The new public statement from the library following the October 16 special meeting is as follows:

This is all the result of a proviso in the state budget and it is the purpose of such a proviso. It’s not about “protecting children” from inappropriate materials in public libraries–no such things exist, and further, it is the parents’ job to help their children choose materials at the library that they deem appropriate for them. The proviso passed several months ago and still to date, no definition of “books or materials that appeal to the prurient interest of children” has been presented by the state. The Attorney General had been tasked with such work in late June and as of yet, no definition has been provided.

It is quite likely, as has been the case in other states across the country, materials “appealing to the prurient interests of children” will be left to the definition of the boards themselves. Recall that public library budgets are directly connected to this proviso, meaning that without definition, collection decisions will either need to be halted to be in compliance or boards will need to make a definition for themselves–and we know that because funding is crucial for the survival of a public library, this is an opportunity for the far-right agenda to create a definition that suits their conspiracies about what is and is not “sexual” material for children.

Of course, the South Carolina Attorney General is friendly with groups like Moms For Liberty and has appeared at events for groups like “Friends for Liberty.” Friends for Liberty is also cozy with Ellen Weaver, Superintendent of State Education responsible for the book banning bill passed at the school library level in the state (recall she used taxpayer money to hire a lawyer who would show up at meetings in support of the bill).

These provisos and laws are about sowing discord and distrust in public institutions. York County Library, which has already been rattled by its county council, was only further damaged by the proviso and extremists on the board eager to not only comply with a moral panic peddled as law but to also embarrass and shame anyone working on behalf of the library and community’s best interests.

Moreover, York County Library’s lack of record keeping made it easy to push blame for a decision off the plate of those who proposed it and onto others. This is precisely what is happening elsewhere across the country in institutions like libraries, schools, and otherwise: by having no accountability on paper, on tape, or on video, it is easy to rewrite a history and rewrite the truth in the vision of whoever has power, whether real or perceived.

And even when reality sets in and the decision to put things down on record is made, who keeps that record needs to be as importantly considered as having it down, period. In York County Library, that the individual most eager to censure and rebuke a member of the board for following precedent keeping the record should be cause for continued monitoring by the public. There’s a reason that several minutes of the meeting were devoted to the wheres, hows, and whys of an audio recording.

It’s much easier to have your story be presented as truth if there’s not additional safeguards in place.

For now, minors in York County will continue to see new books on library shelves, at least in theory. If it is up to the board to define what does and does not constitute “sexual material,” though, who knows if this will be something they believe their trained professional librarians can competently do or if it will be something that certain board members believe only they are capable of doing.