A Senate committee on Wednesday submitted a favorable report to Sen. Chris Elliott's (R-Josephine) bill that would give local governments the power to remove public library directors with a majority vote.

Elliott said several mayors have contacted him and asked whether local governments, which are responsible for appointing commissioners, have the authority to remove them.

“As a former local government employee, frankly, I’m surprised they didn’t do that,” Elliott said.

The current language does not give local appointing authorities the power to remove library commissioners during their terms, but it also does not explicitly prohibit governing authorities from creating procedures for removing local commissioners.

Library board members may be removed from office, at least at the local level. In Ozark, a member can be removed if the other four members of her committee vote unanimously to remove that individual. In Prattville, if a board member misses enough consecutive meetings, he or she can be automatically removed from office.

Elliott tried to frame the bill at face value, but that didn't stop his Democratic colleagues on the committee from soaking up the undercurrent.

“Maybe I'm just a natural skeptic,” said Sen. Merika Coleman, D-Birmingham. “Senator, what I would like to know from you is what would have happened if this had been our approach.I know that my colleagues on the right have been paying attention to libraries lately, so We are trying to understand why we have to introduce this bill and what happened.”

“You and I have been working together for several years, and I think you will agree that I will play my cards face up, so I will answer your questions as directly as possible,” Elliott said. answered. “This bill was brought to me because of budget concerns with the mayor.”

Elliott reiterated these alleged budget concerns raised by mayors, including whether certain content should be deemed inappropriate for children and whether it should be moved within or removed from the library. I downplayed its relevance to the discussion. He argued that even though the library board was operating within funds already appropriated by the appointing authority, the library board proposed the contract to the executive director, and the appropriating authority was “snatched” by the contract. He explained the situation.

Sen. Kirk Hatcher, D-Montgomery, called the bill “the worst kind of moral legislation.”

“Right now, if you have someone on the library board who hasn't been properly vetted, is there anything that can be done without some kind of legislation? I think this is slippery legislation,” Hatcher said. “I think this takes us into no-book territory, and I don't agree with that. I can't imagine going back to that situation.”

Hatcher pointed to Elliott's comments in Yellowhammer News that the library board is “infiltrated” by people who don't have “Alabama values.” Mr Elliott said it meant the board members did not reflect the values ​​of the local community.

Democrats weren't the only ones objecting to the bill. The committee ultimately voted 7-3 in favor of the bill, with Sen. Linda Coleman Madison (D-Birmingham) also joining her bipartisan support for the bill. However, Sen. Greg Albritton (R-Atmore) announced his opposition to the bill before leaving the committee early to attend to other matters. Albritton said he had received many concerns about the bill, but he left the meeting without elaborating.

Platteville situation

While Mr. Elliott tried to keep the conversation at face value and avoid the issue of book challenges, Sen. Clyde Chambliss (R-Platteville) has been pushing the bill in Prattville for the past year. This is connected to the current discussion.

“The issues that are on my mind are censorship, free speech, or…I'm not trying to ban books, and I don't support it,” Chambliss said. “What I'm interested in is having an age-appropriate procedural process…in our case we didn't have that. And people who were in our situation, we had to have a process that was age-appropriate to protect our children. He turned his back on them and protected the most innocent people from their danger.'' The heart is not ready to understand. It will be later, but not at that age. And in those cases, our community was outraged for not protecting our children. We needed different leadership. ”

The Autauga-Platteville Public Library Board never completed the review process for many of the books residents objected to, but residents later formed a statewide group, Clean Up Alabama, to address the issue. He was at the forefront of promoting this throughout the state. Most of the books reviewed were not sexually explicit, but instead featured LGBTQ characters, and the committee found that most of the books were appropriately shelved. Sexually explicit books are still being reviewed, but library staff have already moved 25% of the books that have been challenged ahead of a formal review.

Chambliss' portrayal of the community being “outraged” by refusing to relocate these books is also at best, as there was an equal, if not greater, backlash to the relocation of the books. This is misleading. In fact, at a Prattville City Council meeting that could have given the council significantly more control over content, about two-thirds of voters appeared to be on the side of allowing the library board to proceed. The Platteville opponents then joined Clean Up Alabama's main statewide opposition, Reed Freeley Alabama.

The issue of library commissioner removal is at stake in Platteville after the Autauga County Commission ignored precedent and appointed a library commissioner sympathetic to the Clean Up Alabama cause without waiting for a recommendation from a sitting library commissioner. It becomes. The move prompted the remaining four members to resign with immediate effect.

Currently, Clean Up Alabama believes it has the numerical advantage on the four-member, county-appointed Autauga-Platteville Library Board, and the board's agenda set for today will include many upcoming It seems like you are referring to a change.