Let's Reconsider

School librarians are not “trusted experts” for children. 👧

Here is another reason why, from a mom of six.

“Freedom to Read Act” is from American Library Association—it sets school librarians as trusted experts. Do not sign that into law and repeal the others.

Defund ALA. pic.twitter.com/TGPSX8MQWe

— Dan Kleinman @OccupyLibraries (@OccupyLibraries) March 16, 2026

By Gretchen Garrity

When libraries shelve and promote age-inappropriate materials, they contribute to harming children. Recourse for parents is often dismissive and burdensome. Sexualizing children is deeply evil and it should be readily identified as such. Introducing minors to gender ideology, sex and sexual situations before they are emotionally ready, and before their parents have consented, is unacceptable in taxpayer-funded organizations. 

In a recent article, Dan Kleinman of Safe Libraries notes, "This ongoing conflict underscores a core reality: as the Supreme Court has affirmed, parents are the primary protectors of their children's best interests and possess the fundamental constitutional right to direct their upbringing and education without being shut out or overridden by schools or public libraries.

Opponents, however—a powerful vocal minority—have framed parental objections to sexually explicit materials available to children as censorship, successfully influencing policy in many districts and states to effectively override family oversight regarding curriculum, access to sexually explicit materials, and exposure to politically driven agenda initiatives."

Recently, two Christian County Library Board members suggested that parents should be filling out challenge forms to alert the library to inappropriate books after the book Sybilline (discussed HERE and HERE) was exposed at a public meeting. The book was published in February. To his credit, the executive director also noted that speaking to staff could serve the same function.

As Kleinman notes, "Public schools and public libraries place sexually explicit illustrations and text in front of your children and require you to fight to protect your child from accidentally seeing it."

Are librarians not trained to curate their collections in a manner that protects children? Why must citizens, who pay the salaries of these trained staff, be the ones to ferret out and object to sexualized and age-inappropriate books?

The reconsideration policy and forms are not designed to protect children or parents' rights. They are designed to retain books in the library, regardless of content. If you have ever filled one out and turned it in, you know what happens. See HERE. The book is almost always retained with reasons such as the book has been checked out recently, the book has numerous positive reviews and awards, the publisher determines age-appropriateness, one must not discriminate, and so on. At best it is a stall tactic. At worst it is meant to let parents know in no uncertain terms that the library knows best and you are to go away and let the experts get on about the business of the library.

The American Library Association (ALA) is so invested in the unquestioned authority of libraries to be the arbiter of appropriateness that they even have a confidential support form:

From: ALA

The ALA considers restricting access or relocating a book to the adult section as censorship or banning. It is neither, since no books are being suppressed (either in part or whole) and the government has not banned the book. These books are widely available at bookstores, online, etc. The argument has been successful in the past, but the courts are taking a second look and deciding that taxpayer-funded libraries have a right to curate their collections without forced exclusion or inclusion. Recent court decisions are also beginning to acknowledge and defend parental rights. 

The ALA remains adamant that "the right of every individual to both seek and receive information from all points of view without restriction" is a right that extends to children. Again, insisting that children have a "right" to be exposed to depictions of sex (of whatever kind), genitals, transgender ideology and so on is evil on its face.

In his article referenced above, Kleinman also writes, "Constitutional Parent's Rights appear to be placed as secondary to a child's "right to read" which is not a right at all, but a suggested library policy by the American Library Association. "Freedom of Information," does not override Parent's Rights, either, also a suggestion from the ALA, however public libraries use both policies to potentially violate Constitutional rights of parents with regard to children's education and development."

The Missouri Public Library Trustee Manual, which relies heavily on ALA ideology, provides a sample reconsideration policy HERE (page 76). It is very similar to the ALA sample reconsideration policy you can find HERE. 

You can find the Christian County Library reconsideration form HERE.

On page 25 of the state trustee manual it states, "Trustees must recognize the right of citizens to question board actions and be willing to listen and explain the policies of the library. The board should offer an open, concerned image without accommodating censorship demands. [Bolding added] Have a simple procedure for the board to use when dealing with material challenges. The library director should be the first person that meets with the patron and receives the complaint. If the matter is not satisfactorily addressed by the director, then the library board is next in line to receive the complaint."

Again, the accusation against citizens is one of censorship. And again, censorship involves government suppression, in whole or part, of speech or writing. Neither is happening just because a public library decides to curate its collection and abide by laws protecting children. And the Missouri trustee handbook flat out states that the library should offer a sense of concern "without accommodating censorship demands." It should be noted that the Missouri trustee handbook is not law. It promotes guidelines. No individual Missouri library must enforce or endorse them.

A library must take into consideration their patrons, including those who are minors and the laws governing their protection. Here is a portion of the Christian County Library policy on censorship. Although the board formally disassociated from the ALA, the LINK to a censorship policy differs from the updated materials policy that can be linked HERE. It should be updated to reflect the deletion of the policy below.

The fact is, the curation of library collections is primarily with those selecting, approving, and buying the books.

Book reconsideration challenges are used to identify who objects to the books and how many times they submit objections. They are performative on the part of the library. In essence they are written struggle sessions. To suggest a public library is incapable of properly curating a children's collection in accordance with laws designed to protect minors is also an insult to staff. Although parents are the lawful arbiters of judgment regarding their children, librarians who adhere to state and federal statutes regarding child protection would be generally in alignment. If there is a need for additional training, the executive director and board should make sure it happens.

Parents and other patrons should not have to scour the children's section to protect them from age-inappropriate and sexually explicit materials. Children should be allowed to remain free of such things in a library--the place where a world of knowledge, truth, and goodness should await them--not indoctrination, sexualization and degradation.

Instead of using reconsiderations as a 'gotcha' moment it would be a welcome surprise if the library took seriously the implementation of an updated collection policy. At the moment it is a pity reconsideration challenges could become a common avenue of collection curation, and not the library performing due diligence to protect the community's children.

Dithering

 

By Gretchen Garrity

Over three years ago, members of the community became aware that age inappropriate and sexually explicit books were being shelved in the Christian County Library's children and teen sections. Appealing to the library board was ineffective. An uproar occurred, resulting in several town hall events sponsored by the county commission.

Citizens were activated and began taking a closer look at how these books were finding their way into our library system. At the top of the system is the American Library Association, which works closely with some of the biggest book publishers. Together, there is a tight system of promoting agendas that run counter to a healthy culture that protects children. 

The publishers seek out authors who are willing to produce books that often amount to smut, and this blog has exposed many of them. Additionally, the ALA acts as the arbiter of professional library training through their accreditation monopoly, along with dozens of spin-off organizations that all undermine a commonsense culture of protecting children.

The result: hundreds of age inappropriate books are marketed to children and teens and made freely available to them, often right under unsuspecting parents’ noses. At one point, it was noted that at least 400 such books were shelved in our district’s four library branches. And the books keep coming. Even if the books were all restricted/relocated today, book purveyors are working hard to make sure more are coming down the pipeline. 

Due to the uproar, the county commissioners took back the appointment process and began vetting candidates for the library board. This resulted in a complete turn over of the board during the last couple years. Three of the five current board members were all previously active in advocating to protect children from exposure to sexually explicit books.

How well have they accomplished their goal? While there have been some gains such as disassociating from the ALA (which still has a large influence), and updating the bylaws to better reflect library governance according to statute, much remains to be done.

How many sexually explicit books have been restricted or relocated? What is the collection policy for children’s and teens’ books? Does it reflect state and federal law? Has the staff been trained to review books before they purchase or do they simply continue to rely on organizations like the ALA, various publishers and reviewers? Are books bought in lots or bundles without review?

I ask these questions because yet another sexually explicit book, just published in February 2026, has been purchased and shelved in our library. That book is titled Sibylline. It is described five times in the online catalog as “Juvenile fiction.” The publishers originally marketed this book for ages 14-17, but the outrage among reviewers who received advance copies of the book was such that the book is now being marketed for age 17 and up. An incremental concession by the publisher. 

There is at least one copy in the Ozark library’s teen section (ages 12-17). The book contains the rape of a minor, explicit sex, a 'threesome', and 'adjacent' necrophilia. Let me explain. The teen was described as not breathing, as motionless, as dead. That he was found not to be dead pages later is little consolation to the non-consensual nature of the sex scene. The comments at Goodreads are hard hitting and unusual for a secular review site. And here is a short discussion of Sibylline with Allie Beth Stuckey and Anne Sey of Library4kiddos.com. 

 

At a January strategic planning meeting, the library's Executive Director Will Blydenburgh planned to begin formulating an updated collection policy. His idea was to present at the February meeting a portion of a collection policy--the introduction and scope. He promoted the idea of presenting to the board a collection policy in "chunks" on an ongoing basis. "Maybe we can do another addition, you know, whether it's March or April. We'll see where we stand. But we'd get started in February for that meeting," he said (advance the video to about 59 minutes).

That did not happen. What happened was an assertion the collection policy was being worked on, but there was no draft of even the beginning of a policy. What did happen amounted to a diversionary tactic: the presentation of an Amazon Wish List that citizens could access to buy and donate books to the library. Video HERE (advanced to the 1:05:00 time stamp).

The thing is, AI can write a collection policy in seconds, formulated and geared toward the needs of Christian County. It could be tweaked and polished, added to or corrected in any manner.

I know because I did it. Choose any AI program you want to, add in any applicable laws and so on. Indeed, there are many well-written collection policies that are ALA-averse and easily available. I believe the library board is aware of at least one or two.

So, the question must be asked: Why is a collection policy taking a year or more to formulate? Why are drafts going to be provided in "chunks" while books like Sibylline are still being purchased by library staff and shelved where children have access?

We have a new library board, and a new executive director who has been on the job for seven full months now. And still the vile sexually explicit books are being purchased with taxpayer funds, shelved in our library and made available to minors.The book Sibylline has been checked out. Your child may be reading it right now. 

The Library's bylaws state in Art. VIII: "The Board of Trustees has the following powers and responsibilities:  

● Policy Setting: The board establishes library policies, including rules for the operation
and use of library facilities and services in coordination with the Executive Director." 

There were subcommittee meetings in March  and April of 2025 that discuss formulating a policy for the children's collection. It is worth giving a listen to HERE and HERE. The groundwork was being laid. It has since been laid to rest, apparently.

It's a shame the library board is dithering--unable or unwilling to do the job they were appointed to do in a timely manner. Meanwhile, children have unrestricted access to books like Sibylline. More such books are undoubtedly en route.

There is a library board meeting tonight at 6 p.m. The agenda does include a "Collection Development Policy Update" under Old Business.

Good or bad?

 Are free speech rights being suppressed? The article is behind a paywall. But you can see where the county library CEO says it is a move to make all feel welcome at the library. Wondering if library patrons have been avoiding the library...

St. Charles County libraries ban LGBTQ flags, other 'personal beliefs' decor https://t.co/X3QqjcTS8g

— St. Louis Post-Dispatch (@stltoday) March 11, 2026

Hear this...

From: Abolish Abortion Missouri

 

Putting the library on the hot spot

By Gretchen Garrity

At their Feb. 24, 2026 meeting the Christian County Library Board of Trustees voted down a motion to limit mobile hot spots to one for each library branch. Treasurer John Garrity* began looking into mobile hot spots at the library when he saw the annual cost for them, anywhere from over $20,000 annually to the current cost of around $18,000.  

There are 45 mobile hotspot devices, according to the library's Feb. 21, 2026 Verizon billing record. Six are not being assessed charges for whatever reason and seven have charges although there is zero data usage. One hotspot is designated as a staff device.

The Board packet (which you can access HERE) beginning on page 25, details information the treasurer shared with other board members four weeks before the meeting, as well as library staff’s executive summary beginning on page 29.

Public comments included arguments both for and against the mobile hotspots. The video below should be prompted to just after the 9-minute mark. After the speakers are finished, there is discussion surrounding the mobile hot spots. Please note the speaker in favor of the hotspots owns her own home, owns at least two smartphones between family members, runs a business out of her home and widely travels the state.

According to the library staff's summary there were 329 total checkouts of mobile hot spots last year (334 if you go by the 2025 annual report). Hot spots are checked out at four-week intervals. If you divide the 329 checkouts by 12 that comes out to about 27.4 checkouts per month. The library's online checkout shows 34 devices available for checkout. Taking into consideration the nearly $20,000 it takes to maintain and pay for the hotspots, that means each hotspot is costing the library about $480 per year. 

In a county of 96,000 citizens the library's mobile hot spots are serving a mere .348% of the population, some of whom may be library staff. Less than half of one percent of Christian County citizens are receiving free internet at a cost of almost $20,000 annually for taxpayers. If you figure that, like the speaker, some mobile hotspots are being rotated in one household through two or more library cardholders, that means the number of individual households served is even less. 

As mentioned earlier, there are currently seven devices the library owns that are using zero data. They may be broken, stolen, lost, or misplaced, yet the library continues to pay monthly fees for them. This was noted in the Feb. 24 meeting.  I believe the staff is researching this issue.

And, according to an employee assignment record I obtained through a sunshine request, there were three hotspots checked out to employees for remote work in 2020 and 2021 during the Covid time. From the record it appears they have not been checked back in, though the employee record may not have been updated. The equipment descriptions do not fit the monthly invoice designations, making it impossible to determine if these hotspots are currently in use. The latest February Verizon bill notes a $40.01 hotspot charge for "Christian Co Staff 3" with usage of .506GB. Usage for that staff hotspot in the months of January and December include 1.302GB and 1.501GB respectively.

I also made a sunshine request to the Library, asking how many unique users requested the mobile hotspots for a several-month time frame. The Library responded by saying they would have to create a new record to give me that information, and therefore the request was denied on legal grounds.** Board Vice President Kelli Roberts also asked that question of Executive Director Will Blydenburgh at the Feb. 24 meeting. It was not the first time that question has been asked. The extremely limited reach of these mobile hotspots is a major equity and accessibility issue, as other libraries have noted.

The Grand Rapids, Michigan Public Library system, with an annual budget of $15.5 million is phasing out their mobile hot spots. They will be allocating the funds elsewhere. According to the article, "'Despite the large financial investment, the reach of the collection is very limited,' Library Director of Marketing and Communications Katie Zychowski wrote in an email to News 8."

The Grand Rapids library also noted how many unique checkouts they had in 2025. "During fiscal year 2025, the hot spots were checked out 869 times to 490 people. GRPL calculated an average yearly cost of about $183 per user." The Michigan library openly shared the number of unique users. They clearly saw the financial implication and equity issues.

Rotating checkouts in one household is a problem in libraries, as you can see in the following conversation on Reddit titled “Hotspots are our nightmare”:

The conversation on Reddit roams widely on the problems of providing free mobile hotspots to patrons. What was not thoroughly discussed in the meeting was the use of filters on the mobile hotspots. Note the following from the Reddit conversation:

The CCL does not have filters on the mobile hotspots, which means the library has no control over the usage of their electronic devices once checked out. The mobile hotspots were only recently moved to the Library of Things and limited to adult checkout. Depending on which organization is tracking internet usage, from 10-30% of all internet usage can be attributed to viewing porn. Additionally, these unfiltered hotspots could be used for any number of criminal activities.

Let's next address the apparent need that mobile hotspots serve in rural areas and for low-income citizens. The  staff-compiled summary listed several reasons that hotspots should be continued.

They noted the rural nature of parts of Christian County, with broadband service being limited (though it is being rapidly expanded). It is useful to note that cell phone towers are also being quickly erected, and that most areas of our county have 100% or close to coverage of either fixed or mobile broadband. As indicated in the treasurer's report, the need for pandemic-era mobile hotspots for rural areas has passed for the following reasons:

• Pandemic policies are no longer in effect
• All four library branches are open and provide free wi-fi
  
• Almost universal smartphone market penetration (91% of adult ownership nationwide)
• Virtually 100% of smartphones include hotspot hardware as a native feature
• Free wi-fi in Christian County is widely available at restaurants and retail shops, and is more reliable than mobile hotspots. If your phone's wi-fi goes down, so does the mobile hotspots.
  
• 5G is widely available in the county's major hubs, and is improving in rural areas through state-funded grants. Several 5G radio towers are slated for completion in early 2026 to eliminate any remaining dead zones.
• There are several government and low-income internet assistance programs for the truly needy, and many of the major providers also offer programs to assist customers with different options.

To summarize some of the issues:

• Major equity and accessibility issues for taxpaying Christian County residents. Mobile hotspots serve less than one half a percent of citizens in Christian County.   
• If the library attempted to provide mobile hotspots strictly for residents below the poverty line,  only 4% (about 8,000 in poverty in CC) of the truly needy would have access to the library's mobile hotspots if all of the checkouts are those in poverty and are the same number served in 2025. 
• Residents in under-served areas are fast approaching full coverage for internet service through expanded broadband programs, new cell towers, as well as satellite internet.
  
• The number of actual served citizens is less if one takes into account the common situation that some households check out hotspots on a rotating basis, thus cutting equal access even further.
• The annual cost to maintain mobile hotspots is nearly $20,000, which breaks down to about $480 per device per year.
• None of the mobile hotspots at the CCL include internet filtering.
  
• Seven of the devices are costing the library monthly charges, but are seemingly unaccounted for and showing no data usage.
  
• Additionally, from the employee assignment sheet, it looks as if three mobile hotspots were checked out to the Christian County Healthy Department on Dec. 17 (there is no year noted), but have not been marked as returned.
  

The question really comes down to the library's financial focus and overall mission. 

• Should a library's focus include providing free internet service in homes?
• Is it financially feasible? 
• Can taxpayer funds be better utilized elsewhere in the library? 
• Are all library patrons being served equitably?

Since public libraries such as the St. Louis and Grand Rapids libraries are phasing out the Covid-era mobile hotspots, this issue should be revisited at the Christian County Library. Providing free internet to an extremely limited number of citizens may not be the best use of library funds, especially when there is a diminishing need. 

 The library board has financial and ethical responsibilities on behalf of all citizens of Christian County who are served by the library district. The library cannot be "all things to all people," but it can provide excellent library services that reach as many people as possible with the taxpayer funding provided to it.

___________________________________________________________________________________

*I am married to John Garrity.

**It is questionable whether the library can refuse to provide extracted information from an existing record. 

According to AI (GROK):

"[U]nder Missouri's Sunshine Law (Chapter 610, RSMo), requesting certain data extracted or pulled from existing records is generally not considered "generating a new record" that the public governmental body is required to create from scratch. The law requires agencies to provide access to existing public records but does not obligate them to create entirely new records that do not already exist.Key points from the law, court decisions, and related guidance:

• The Sunshine Law mandates that public governmental bodies provide access to and copies of existing public records (as defined in § 610.010(6), RSMo, which includes records retained by or for the body, whether written or electronic).
• Public bodies are not required to create new records in response to a request. This principle is clearly stated in Missouri case law, such as Jones v. Jackson County Circuit Court (162 S.W.3d 53, Mo. App. W.D. 2005), where the court held that the law "does not require a government body to create a new record upon request, but only to provide access to existing records held or maintained by the public governmental body."
• Similar guidance appears in summaries from the Missouri Attorney General's Office and other official resources, emphasizing that agencies must grant access to what they already have but are not compelled to compile or generate new documents solely for the requester.
  However, there are practical nuances, especially with modern electronic records:

  • If the requested data can be easily extracted or generated from an existing database or computer system (e.g., running a simple query or report that pulls information already stored), some interpretations argue it may qualify as an "existing record" rather than creating something new. For example, legal analysis from sources like Spencer Fane (discussing governmental hospitals) notes that if a spreadsheet or output "could easily [be] generated from existing records in the database," there is "at least an argument" that it counts as an existing record, particularly if producing redacted originals would be more burdensome.
  • In such cases, agencies often produce the extracted data as the most straightforward way to comply, especially when it's low-effort and promotes transparency (the law is to be liberally construed in favor of openness per § 610.011).
    • If the request requires substantial new compilation, analysis, summarization, or creation of a novel document (e.g., a custom report requiring significant manual effort or new calculations), agencies can generally decline to create it and instead offer access to the underlying raw records.

    Agencies can charge reasonable fees for research time, search, and duplication (§ 610.026), which may cover the effort to pull data from databases.For the most accurate application to a specific request, review the exact wording of your request and consider consulting the agency's custodian of records, or—if denied—the Missouri Attorney General's Office (which handles Sunshine Law complaints). The full text of Chapter 610 is available on the Missouri Revisor of Statutes website for reference."