We are a small, rural, association library that serves a population of under 4,500. We recently received an Abuse or Molestation Exclusion from our general liability/property insurance company.
Before answering this question, I have to point to the extraordinary care the member has put into formulating it.
Prior to considering insurance coverage as a question of budget, this member library has:
We are revising our Meeting Room Policy. Currently we have a group of seniors who meet at our library for [really healthy] exercise in the morning before the library is open. They have been doing this for about [many] years.
There are three things that are potential obstacles to this request:
1. Safety (and its flip side: Liability)
2. Security (and its flip side: Loss)
3. Charitable Status (and its obscure tax-concept flip side: "Inurements")
The library is chartered as a school district public library and thus exempt from NYS sales tax. Due to a mold issue we ended up having our HVAC contractor rent two humidifiers for us, the contractor made the arrangements and we paid for the rental via the contractor. The contractor told the renting business that we were tax exempt. The renting business refuses to remove the sales tax.
Short answer: You can't find anything to verify that claim because what is claimed is wrong.
Long answer: The rental business may be wrong, but I can't blame them the way I can blame someone for parking in a "No Parking" zone.[1]
The NYS law requiring people to demonstrate a reason to conceal carry a weapon has been overturned by the Supreme Court. What this means for libraries. Is there anything we can do to prevent guns in the library?
When New York’s "proper-cause requirement" for obtaining an unrestricted license to carry a concealed firearm was struck down by the United States Supreme Court on June 23, 2022[1], the New York State Legislature--in a state still reeling from fatal gun violence in Buffalo just weeks before--swiftly passed laws to replace it.[2
There are reports of first amendment audits happening in rural towns and villages. Public libraries are limited public forums - how can we stop the filming, as quietly as possible without causing a social media frenzy.
For a person who hasn't run into this concept yet, a so-called "First Amendment audit" is an increasingly popular trend where people visit government buildings and demand access to information--along with the privilege to film on site--all in the name of the law, democracy and transparency.
As a lawyer and U.S. citizen, I am all for the law, democracy, and transparency.
My hometown library has implemented a fitness waiver for their movement and exercise activity programs. I am wondering if this is a good idea for my library. We provide some exercise classes including chair yoga, Zumba, nature walks, and are looking into another movement class activity.
I have a lot of fun-loving clients. Here are some examples of activities I've created liability waivers for:
Local police walked through our Library earlier today with no explanation. Later on, we noticed 2 teens on premises, who we assume should have been in school. We thought the police may have been looking for them as truants, but that is not confirmed.
There is no one right answer to this question, but there is a formula for any library to come up with its own, unique answer.
Here is the formula:
[Situation] x [Ethics + Law] / [POLICY/Precedent] = YES or NO
Let me break this approach down. And trust me, I will give a clear reply to the member's question at the end of all this.
We have a school district public library board considering requiring background checks for new employees. They are concerned that they may be legally required to background check all current employees. Would there be any legal reason they would need to do so?
[NOTE: for background to this short answer, please see the much longer "Ask the Lawyer" Background checks and fingerprinting for new employees, that addresses the tightrope walk/legal minefields of employee background checks.]
Kids have been playing in our parking lot and my board is concerned that they will hurt themselves and we will be liable. We have a very vague policy about our parking lot being for patrons to park at only and a couple signs that say patron parking only.
Behold, the humble skateboarder: wheels spinning, scabby knees, and (if they have gotten over the fact that even when worn by Tony Hawk, it looks dorky) brain carefully protected by helmet, ready for action. Never has a humble sport posed more of a challenge to local governments, park designers, architects, and urban planners; lay down a relatively smooth surface, and there they are, ready to
My questions involve background checks for potential new employees, fingerprinting, developing policies, procedures, and best practices.
This...is a big question. It's only three short paragraphs. But it's BIG.
It's "BIG" because the risks of getting this topic wrong are immense--from not only the obvious risks involving legal concerns, but risks involving ethics, privacy, and the goal at the heart of the issue: safety.
