Fremont County Library Board reaches consensus on children’s collection policy
LANDER — After months of library board clashes and amidst ongoing disagreements over board and library director conduct, the Fremont County Library Board was able to reach a moment of compromise at its April meeting.
Although conversations about changes to the library’s policies started off heated, by the end a new policy, described as one intended to protect children from harmful materials and added to the existing collection development policy, passed with unanimous consensus from the board.
Initially, the board was to consider two competing proposed policy revisions.
The conversation kicked off with board member Perry Cook’s proposed policy revision, which highlighted state statute. When introducing her proposed revisions, Cook noted that the library’s book challenge system is already functioning to refine which books are present in the library system: In 2022, she said, there were three book challenges, one of which resulted in a book being removed; in 2023, the library system saw no book challenges; in 2024, she cited, there were again three challenges resulting in one removal; in 2025, there were again no book challenges; and out of those challenges, Cook continued, some that did not result in books being removed did result in their being moved to other sections of the library.
Board member Karen Wetzel disputed this characterization of the book challenge system, saying that library board members have previously declined to read challenged books and voted to “give their votes” to the library director.
Board member Marta Mossburg initially objected to further discussion of the proposed policy revisions, repeatedly emphasizing that the issues at hand had been discussed at length both over the past several months and at the board’s March work session.
“This discussion cannot be fruitful,” she said, arguing that the board should just vote.
Cook’s proposed policy revisions failed 3-2 along what have become predictable lines within the library board, with Cook and board member Julie Lefevre voting in favor and board chair Kristen McClelland, Mossburg, and Wetzel voting against.
Mossburg’s proposed revisions came up next. These revisions had been refined over time, including a removal of a reference to a Christian website. Cook brought a slate of proposed changes which Mossburg initially declined to read, again arguing in favor of an immediate vote.
“I think the time for this is past, because we did go over these things at the working group, and you didn’t budge,” Mossburg told Cook. “There was no discussion of compromise during our working group session, so I find it interesting that you’re thinking maybe there’s room for it right now.”
However, as conversations continued the board members, including Mossburg, appeared to find several points on which compromise was indeed possible.
One point on which Cook found support from McClelland had to do with the logistics of enforcing a policy.
Mossburg’s initial policy draft outlined restrictions to what areas of and materials in the library children can access both in person and online which Cook pointed out would require something along the lines of a color-coded card system and perhaps even barring minors without a library card from entering the library. McClelland agreed that these sections would require more robust procedures in order for library staff to realistically be able to enforce them and proposed a friendly amendment to remove those aspects of the revisions.
Mossburg agreed to McClelland’s amendment.
Some of the language in Mossburg’s proposed policy revision came from the Children’s Internet Protection Act; Mossburg’s policy states that this is because the Miller test, which is the benchmark set by the U.S. Supreme Court to determine whether a work is legally obscene to the point of not being protected under the First Amendment, is for adults, not children.
Fremont County Library System Director Anita Marple noted that CIPA is about protecting children from things they may encounter online, not about libraries.
“It’s very shaky grounds to take these laws and apply them to something that they weren’t intended for,” she told the board. “I just think that we’re getting set up for liability.”
Lefevre noted that the references to child pornography under this section are unnecessary, as child pornography is already illegal; earlier in the meeting, Cook had emphasized that there is not child pornography in Fremont County libraries, as child pornography is illegal and the library’s existing collection development policy already states that it must follow state and federal law.
Lefevre also pointed out that the language lifted from CIPA is only about visual materials and doesn’t address written material – which could make it difficult to apply to the library. She suggested adding language about written material.
Marple and McClelland both noted concerns about changing language that was quoting from an existing law, and McClelland ultimately suggested that these concerns should be brought to the county attorney.
The final version of Lefevre’s proposed amendment was to streamline some of the language about what is not acceptable for the children’s section, remove the references to child pornography and obscenity, add a reference to written material to the language lifted from CIPA, and remove a reference to “perverted” sexual acts. Cook, Lefevre, and Wetzel all voted in favor of the amendment; McClelland and Mossburg voted against.
Wetzel also brought forward an amendment to change the language from saying that the policy shall draw on CIPA to saying that it may, which McClelland said would mean that the board is not obligated to follow CIPA exactly. Wetzel’s amendment passed.
Cook suggested removing the reference to the Miller test, arguing that it does, in fact, apply to minors and that stating that it doesn’t is unnecessary. She and Lefevre both voted in favor of this amendment, but McClelland, Mossburg, and Wetzel all opposed.
In the final section of Mossburg’s proposed policy revision, she included an exception for science books, textbooks, works of classic literature, and other appropriate educational uses, and provided definitions of the categories that could qualify for exceptions. Cook suggested removing the definitions.
“This is library science; I think we have well covered our concerns about inappropriate sexual depictions or words,” Cook explained. “I don’t think the actual rules of construction need to be in there. I think that’s micromanaging. I would like to see that gone – and then I will vote for this whole thing.”
She also emphasized that there are already strong collection development guidelines in the library’s procedures.
After some refining and friendly amendments to Cook’s amendment from McClelland and Mossburg, all board members except Wetzel voted in favor of this final amendment.
The board then took its final vote on the collection development policy for children, to be added onto its existing collection development policy; the heavily-amended version of the proposed revision passed unanimously.
Guiding Principles Policy
The library board’s consideration of its policies and procedures was prompted by the removal of language referencing the American Library Association from its documents. Also currently under consideration is a proposed new guiding principles policy to its organizational and personnel policy manual.
The five points of the proposed guiding principles policy include one that states that “materials should be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation”; one stating that the library should provide information presenting all points of view on a given issue and that materials “should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval”; that a person’s right to use the library should not be denied, although parents have the right to limit access for minors; libraries should make spaces and meeting rooms available to the public on an equitable basis; and that all people have “a right to privacy and confidentiality in their library use.”
These guiding principles are currently undergoing a 45-day public comment period, which will end on May 20.
The principles are available to review in person at each Fremont County library, or online at https://www.fclsonline.org/public-notices. Comments may be submitted in person at the library or emailed to amarple@fclsonline.org; all comments will be forwarded to the library board.
This story was published on April 11, 2026.