 |
 |
Good evening, We have been monitoring several bills this session and need your immediate attention. Before Representatives go into their State Government Committee session tomorrow (Wednesday), we ask that you'll join in asking them to fully consider libraries and the impact proposed legislation has on libraries and its users. Below are brief templates you can use and edit to your preference to assist in this call to action. Additionally, I am including the link to the bill tracker for your reference.You may also refer to the legislative update sent from the TLA Legislative Monitor on Feb. 29. Thanks, Andrea! Bill Tracker <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vAHMBN1AfolEg-C_93Rlwz6BXCYKQ8xn-TtC10RbaKc/edit?usp=sharing> *Bills on agendas this week:* HB 1661/SB 2173 — on 3/6 for House State Government and Senate Education HB 0843/SB 1060 — on 3/7 for Senate HB 1632/SB 1858 — on 3/6 for Senate Education SB 2107/HB 2457 — on 3/6 Senate Education *Sample Message for HB1661 (House)* State Government Committee <https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/CommitteeInfo/HouseComm.aspx?ga=113&committeeKey=990000> Dear Representative, I am a Tennessee citizen and library user and supporter. The following bill is on the agenda to be discussed during the State Government Committee session. I am writing to ask that you vote no on HB 1661. This bill will invite legal action that has the potential to be extremely costly to taxpayers via local jurisdictions. The fiscal note suggests that the procedure proscribed by the proposed legislation would be costly for library boards to implement, with no funding provided by the state to support those procedures. Further, the verification of petition signatures places undue strain on small election commissions, especially if submitted during election cycles. The bill is also unconstitutional, as it removes books not based on the legal test in Miller, Ginsberg, etc., but rather it is based on a petition. A similar procedure was struck down by a federal court as an unconstitutional infringement of library users’ rights in Sund v. City of Wichita Falls, Tex., 121 F. Supp. 2d 530 (N.D. Tex. 2000). Again, I ask that you uphold intellectual freedom and vote no on HB 1661. *Sample Message for SB 2173, SB 1858, and SB 2107* Senate Education Committee <https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/CommitteeInfo/SenateComm.aspx?ga=113&committeeKey=630000> Dear Senator, I am a Tennessee citizen and library user and supporter. The following bills are on the agenda to be discussed during the Education Committee session. I am writing to ask that you vote against SB 2173, SB 1858, and SB 2107. SB 2173 will invite legal action that has the potential to be extremely costly to taxpayers via local jurisdictions. The fiscal note suggests that the procedure proscribed by the proposed legislation would be costly for library boards to implement, with no funding provided by the state to support those procedures. Further, the verification of petition signatures places undue strain on small election commissions, especially if submitted during election cycles. The bill is also unconstitutional, as it removes books not based on the legal test in Miller, Ginsberg, etc., but rather it is based on a petition. A similar procedure was struck down by a federal court as an unconstitutional infringement of library users’ rights in Sund v. City of Wichita Falls, Tex., 121 F. Supp. 2d 530 (N.D. Tex. 2000). Regarding SB 1858, the existing state code from the Age Appropriate Materials Act of 2022 requires LEAs to post their materials and develop a policy for reviewing materials, including evaluating parent feedback and removing content if inappropriate. Tennessee public school libraries already have existing reconsideration processes in place for parents that allow them to work with their librarian to evaluate what their children read at school. SB 2107 rewrites the Age Appropriate Materials Act, and the principal has to decide in 5 days whether a book contains sexually explicit material. This puts undue pressure on principals, who are already overwhelmed. The broad definition of sexually explicit would mean that books that support the curriculum could not be part of the library collection. Schools could not have anatomy and art books. Again, I ask that you uphold intellectual freedom and vote no on SB 2173, SB 1858, and SB 2107. *tnla* To protect citizens' rights to intellectual freedom by voting against SB 1060. *Erika Long (she/her)* Not Yo Mama's Librarian, LLC ALA Chapter Councilor notyomamaslibrarian.com X & Bluesky | @erikaslong Instagram | @notyomamaslibrarian