JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — A controversial change to how public libraries operate in Missouri may go into effect without any public hearings, despite generating a record-setting amount of public comments.
Republican state Rep. Alex Riley, of Springfield, said Tuesday he hasn’t made a decision on whether to schedule a hearing where people can further weigh in on Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft’s proposal to block public funding for libraries if they offer books that are pornographic for minors or labeled as obscene under state statutes.
“We’re taking a look at that. We’ll make a decision a little later once we’ve had a chance to review everything,” Riley told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on Tuesday.
Riley’s decision is key to whether a 10-member panel of members of the House and Senate take testimony on an issue that drew an estimated 20,000 comments in support and in opposition to the rule Ashcroft proposed last year.
Riley serves as chairman of the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, which has the power to block the proposed rule and send it to the General Assembly and governor for final approval or rejection.
Under terms of that committee, the matter must be decided by March 10 whether a hearing is held.
Senate Minority Leader John Rizzo, a Democrat from Independence and a member of the committee, urged Riley to schedule a hearing.
“The proposed rule filed by the secretary of state would have broad and permanent ramifications for Missouri’s public libraries. This rule would greatly expand the government’s power to force decisions onto local libraries, and it should not be taken lightly. I think a rule of this magnitude deserves an open and transparent discussion. This rule absolutely needs a public hearing before any action is taken,” Rizzo said Tuesday.
Riley would not say when he may make a decision.
“There is no timeline I’m going to announce right now,” Riley said.
Ashcroft, a Republican considering a 2024 run for governor, floated the change in October.
The proposed rule would require Missouri’s 160 local public libraries to adopt policies on the age-appropriateness of literature. The original rule allowed anyone to be able to challenge access to books. A revised version says only a parent of a minor can challenge access.
The comments also led to Ashcroft changing a provision in the rule that focused on books that would appeal to the “prurient interests of any minor.”
Now, the rule says no funds shall be used to purchase material that is “child pornography” or “pornographic for minors.”
Libraries that violate the rules would risk losing state funding, which is distributed by the secretary of state’s office through the state librarian. Budget documents put that amount at more than $3.5 million.
The proposal drew a sustained rebuke from libraries across the state. Among the more than 20,000 pages of emailed comments, library officials slammed the plan.
The St. Charles City-County Library District, for example, said of the more than 1.1 million people who walked in the doors last year, only six requests were made by three people questioning the content of a book.
“This is a far cry from the picture being painted in the media and by politicians and in no way justifies this overreaching action,” wrote library board President Stacia Alvarez.
Others support the idea, arguing that more controls are needed over content when it deals with questions of sexuality.
“What is the rush to sexualize children and teens when they are yet so immature and incapable of handling situations that could ruin their lives going forward,” wrote Kristina Klein, who did not provide an address.
Although a precise tally hasn’t been made, the opposition outweighs the supporters, Ashcroft spokesman JoDonn Chaney said earlier.
Riley said he’s not attempting to read all of the comments. He has asked legislative aides to compile a report on the information submitted by the public.
“It’s not possible for me in my role to lay eyes on all 16,000,” Riley said.
The proposed change is similar to a new law that made it a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail for educators to give K-12 students books with photos, drawings or other visual depictions that are sexually explicit.
———
