
SEND AN EMAIL: Strike APLS Amendments Approved Without Public Input
Tell the Alabama Legislative Council to strike APLS Amendments that were approved without public input and demand that we follow due process in this state.
Posted on behalf of Read Freely Alabama:
Extremists hijacked the Alabama Public Library Service’s public comment period and shoved through last-minute amendments to the administrative code that will force public libraries to capitulate to their demands.
These administrative codes dictate state funding to our public libraries; under these new amendments, proposed by anti-library extremists Amy Minton, Deborah Windsor and John Wahl, libraries will be banned from purchasing or shelving “inappropriate books,” which will be defined as any book that shows racial justice content and affirms LGBTQ stories, even if they are not sexually explicit. What’s worse is that the public was DENIED input on these amendments.
That’s against the rights of every Alabamian. It’s time we stand up and demand that we have the right to due process.
Please use this page to send an email to the Joint Committee on Administrative Rule Review and tell them to disapprove of these amendments based on the blatant lack of regard for the constitutional right of Alabama families to choose reading material for their children.
There are several strong reasons to disapprove of these rules:
(1) Is there a statutory authority for the proposed rule?
Answer: No. The library agency did not give at least 35 days notice of intended action during which interested persons may present their views, per AL Code 41-22-5(a)(1). The library agency gave an initial notice in the January 2024 Legislative Services Filing, but then the APLS substantially changed the language from what was provided in the notice and did not provide new notice with new opportunity for public comment. Additionally, they have not included reasoning as to why they did not incorporate public comment, as is required by regulations.
(2) Would the absence of the rule or rules significantly harm or endanger the public health, safety, or welfare?
Answer: No. This is a situation where the absence of the rule is preferred and less restrictive than the proposed rule. Making polarized, political changes to the library inventory, as the new rule attempts to do, endangers the public's access to free speech under the First Amendment. Thus, enacting the rule would endanger the public welfare.
(3) Is there a reasonable relationship between the state's police power and the protection of the public health, safety, or welfare?
Answer: Yes. Alabama, as a state in the United States of America, has a duty to uphold the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The danger to the First Amendment is seen primarily in the usage of overbroad and vague terms, specifically when discussing material “inappropriate” for children or youth. If not revised, this rule could allow for the removal or relocation of age-appropriate material due to one individual groups’ ideological or personal beliefs.
(4) Is there another, less restrictive method of regulation available that could adequately protect the public?
Answer: Yes. During the public comment period, APLS received 1600 signed letters from Alabama librarians and verified Alabama residents that supported a less restrictive alternative: the public librarians' counterproposal. This provides safeguards for unsupervised minors, requires policies on material location and relocation, and agrees with Gov. Ivey’s request about funds spent on ALA. Public speakers supported this counter-proposal at the APLS Public Hearing, applauding the good faith and reasonable suggestions it proposed.
(5) Does the rule or do the rules have the effect of directly or indirectly increasing the costs of any goods or services involved and, if so, to what degree?
Answer: Yes. To ensure compliance by Oct. 1st, which starts the new funding year, Alabama libraries will need to immediately start implementing these changes, and they will cause serious effects. First, all library staff and resources will be redirected to analyzing, cataloging, and relocating children and youth material. Without any knowledge or clarity, libraries are predicting they’ll have to temporarily close to the public, with some understaffed rural libraries anticipating ceasing public services for months. Second, a significant amount of wages ($4000-$6000 x one employee x month) will be spent on complying with this new language instead of directly serving the taxpaying resident. Third, several library boards will need additional funds from their municipal or county officials to ensure designated physical space for minors under 18 years old, with appropriate “safeguards” to ensure they are not in areas with “inappropriate” content.Fourth, several libraries will need to purchase new ILS to allow for tiered library cards. This software can cost $15,000+ and will require devoted training and attention to implement.
The vague and overbroad language in these changes could increase the chance of lawsuits, which will increase insurance costs for public libraries, leading to reduced services. APLS Board Chair Ron Snider alluded to this threat when he abstained.
(6) Is the increase in cost, if any, more harmful to the public than the harm that might result from the absence of the rule or rules?
Yes. According to APLS Chair Ron Snider, who voted against these last-minute amendments, there is no “wide-spread” issue with Alabama libraries; research shows that only 3% of Alabama libraries had challenges, with less than 1% of registered library patrons challenging material.
The public will suffer greater harm from these rules, since they will lose their taxes to expensive and pointless construction projects, suffer the loss of regular activities and material access, and possibly be temporarily denied library access and services if their library temporarily closes to complete projects that solves a problem that doesn’t exist.
(7) Are all facets of the rulemaking process designed solely for the purpose of, and so they have, as their primary effect, the protection of the public?
Answer: No. The rulemaking process has been politicized by the removal of a longstanding library board member and the replacement of that board member with a politically motivated person whose votes are skewing the will of the majority of Alabamians. In addition, making last-minute changes to the library regulations without undergoing the full rulemaking process, which would include additional notice, circumvents the rulemaking process and does not protect the public.
Please send an email today. The Legislative Council must work with the Legislative Services Agency (LSA) to disapprove changes to 520-2-2-.03 and have the proposed changes sent through the established rulemaking process. This process, per the established administrative procedures, should include notice of intended action posted on the LSA's website in the Administrative Monthly, at least 35 days where interested persons may present their views, the APLS considers fully all submissions, and upon adoption of a rule, if conflicting views are submitted the APLS should issue a concise statement of the principal reasons for and against its adoption, incorporating its reasons for overruling any considerations.

SEND AN EMAIL: Strike APLS Amendments Approved Without Public Input
Tell the Alabama Legislative Council to strike APLS Amendments that were approved without public input and demand that we follow due process in this state.
Posted on behalf of Read Freely Alabama:
Extremists hijacked the Alabama Public Library Service’s public comment period and shoved through last-minute amendments to the administrative code that will force public libraries to capitulate to their demands.
These administrative codes dictate state funding to our public libraries; under these new amendments, proposed by anti-library extremists Amy Minton, Deborah Windsor and John Wahl, libraries will be banned from purchasing or shelving “inappropriate books,” which will be defined as any book that shows racial justice content and affirms LGBTQ stories, even if they are not sexually explicit. What’s worse is that the public was DENIED input on these amendments.
That’s against the rights of every Alabamian. It’s time we stand up and demand that we have the right to due process.
Please use this page to send an email to the Joint Committee on Administrative Rule Review and tell them to disapprove of these amendments based on the blatant lack of regard for the constitutional right of Alabama families to choose reading material for their children.
There are several strong reasons to disapprove of these rules:
(1) Is there a statutory authority for the proposed rule?
Answer: No. The library agency did not give at least 35 days notice of intended action during which interested persons may present their views, per AL Code 41-22-5(a)(1). The library agency gave an initial notice in the January 2024 Legislative Services Filing, but then the APLS substantially changed the language from what was provided in the notice and did not provide new notice with new opportunity for public comment. Additionally, they have not included reasoning as to why they did not incorporate public comment, as is required by regulations.
(2) Would the absence of the rule or rules significantly harm or endanger the public health, safety, or welfare?
Answer: No. This is a situation where the absence of the rule is preferred and less restrictive than the proposed rule. Making polarized, political changes to the library inventory, as the new rule attempts to do, endangers the public's access to free speech under the First Amendment. Thus, enacting the rule would endanger the public welfare.
(3) Is there a reasonable relationship between the state's police power and the protection of the public health, safety, or welfare?
Answer: Yes. Alabama, as a state in the United States of America, has a duty to uphold the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The danger to the First Amendment is seen primarily in the usage of overbroad and vague terms, specifically when discussing material “inappropriate” for children or youth. If not revised, this rule could allow for the removal or relocation of age-appropriate material due to one individual groups’ ideological or personal beliefs.
(4) Is there another, less restrictive method of regulation available that could adequately protect the public?
Answer: Yes. During the public comment period, APLS received 1600 signed letters from Alabama librarians and verified Alabama residents that supported a less restrictive alternative: the public librarians' counterproposal. This provides safeguards for unsupervised minors, requires policies on material location and relocation, and agrees with Gov. Ivey’s request about funds spent on ALA. Public speakers supported this counter-proposal at the APLS Public Hearing, applauding the good faith and reasonable suggestions it proposed.
(5) Does the rule or do the rules have the effect of directly or indirectly increasing the costs of any goods or services involved and, if so, to what degree?
Answer: Yes. To ensure compliance by Oct. 1st, which starts the new funding year, Alabama libraries will need to immediately start implementing these changes, and they will cause serious effects. First, all library staff and resources will be redirected to analyzing, cataloging, and relocating children and youth material. Without any knowledge or clarity, libraries are predicting they’ll have to temporarily close to the public, with some understaffed rural libraries anticipating ceasing public services for months. Second, a significant amount of wages ($4000-$6000 x one employee x month) will be spent on complying with this new language instead of directly serving the taxpaying resident. Third, several library boards will need additional funds from their municipal or county officials to ensure designated physical space for minors under 18 years old, with appropriate “safeguards” to ensure they are not in areas with “inappropriate” content.Fourth, several libraries will need to purchase new ILS to allow for tiered library cards. This software can cost $15,000+ and will require devoted training and attention to implement.
The vague and overbroad language in these changes could increase the chance of lawsuits, which will increase insurance costs for public libraries, leading to reduced services. APLS Board Chair Ron Snider alluded to this threat when he abstained.
(6) Is the increase in cost, if any, more harmful to the public than the harm that might result from the absence of the rule or rules?
Yes. According to APLS Chair Ron Snider, who voted against these last-minute amendments, there is no “wide-spread” issue with Alabama libraries; research shows that only 3% of Alabama libraries had challenges, with less than 1% of registered library patrons challenging material.
The public will suffer greater harm from these rules, since they will lose their taxes to expensive and pointless construction projects, suffer the loss of regular activities and material access, and possibly be temporarily denied library access and services if their library temporarily closes to complete projects that solves a problem that doesn’t exist.
(7) Are all facets of the rulemaking process designed solely for the purpose of, and so they have, as their primary effect, the protection of the public?
Answer: No. The rulemaking process has been politicized by the removal of a longstanding library board member and the replacement of that board member with a politically motivated person whose votes are skewing the will of the majority of Alabamians. In addition, making last-minute changes to the library regulations without undergoing the full rulemaking process, which would include additional notice, circumvents the rulemaking process and does not protect the public.
Please send an email today. The Legislative Council must work with the Legislative Services Agency (LSA) to disapprove changes to 520-2-2-.03 and have the proposed changes sent through the established rulemaking process. This process, per the established administrative procedures, should include notice of intended action posted on the LSA's website in the Administrative Monthly, at least 35 days where interested persons may present their views, the APLS considers fully all submissions, and upon adoption of a rule, if conflicting views are submitted the APLS should issue a concise statement of the principal reasons for and against its adoption, incorporating its reasons for overruling any considerations.