Opinion: Columbia County’s Library Power Play
This post will also be posted on Freedom to Read Coalition of Columbia County substack.
At the Greater Clarks Hill Regional Library Board (GCHRLB) special-called meeting on June 19, 2025, the board reviewed and voted on a revised Collection Development Policy, which is a foundational document that guides how libraries select, acquire, and manage materials. These policies are essential for ensuring transparency, professionalism, and equitable service to the entire community. The revisions, which were not made public before the meeting but were released to me in an Open Records Request on Friday June 20, 2025, were recommended by the GCHRLB’s newly retained attorney. The guidelines adopted in September 2024 by the Columbia County Board of Commissioners and later affirmed on December 10, 2024 by the GCHRLB, drastically altered how materials, particularly those for children and teens, were categorized and shelved. Yet, the official Collection Development Policy was never updated to include those changes. In fact, many of the new guidelines directly contradicted the policy still on the books. Two library board members began work on modifying Columbia County’s policy after the shelving guidelines were adopted, but that effort was abandoned when it became clear that any changes would need approval from the Regional Board, not just Columbia County.
What Was in the Revised Policy?
I’ve included both the original and revised policies at the top of this post. Please take a look and draw your own conclusions, as I’m not an attorney nor am I a professional librarian.
The attorney’s proposed revisions attempted to clean up some of the more legally questionable and vague language introduced by the new shelving guidelines. While still containing problematic subjective language, the changes offered a framework for re-establishing some of the original professional standards and curbing future abuse of the system. Here's a breakdown of key areas:
References to the ALA Scaled Back
Most mentions of the American Library Association (ALA) were removed, likely to appease political pressure. The ALA has become a frequent target in right-wing circles, primarily due to a tweet from a former president three years ago, even though leadership changes annually and the ALA’s core principles remain consistent. The revised policy removed the ALA’s Library Bill of Rights and Freedom to Read Statement, although it does still reference the ALA’s Library Bill of Rights once in a section about children’s materials. Importantly, it also maintained reliance on professional review sources for material selection, rather than websites like BookLooks (now rebranded as RatedBooks), which were previously used to justify removing over 40 young adult books last fall.
Content Restrictions for Minors
The revised policy introduced new language regarding materials shelved in children’s and teen areas, incorporating Georgia Code 16-12-100, which defines content “harmful to minors.” This is similar to laws in other states and has faced legal scrutiny — as when Virginia courts rejected claims that Gender Queer met that definition. (To be clear, Columbia County Library has always categorized Gender Queer as an adult book.)
The revised policy also stated that materials depicting sexually explicit nudity or legally defined “obscene” content would not be shelved in children’s areas. While this may sound impactful, materials meeting the legal definition of “obscenity” are not part of the public library collection. The policy further prohibited books containing references to sexual acts or full-frontal nudity in areas for patrons under age 12 — a change that could significantly impact access to educational resources like puberty or anatomy books. That said, the policy preserved a critical principle, when it stated, “Responsibility for the patron’s use of library resources rests solely with that patron or a minor’s parent or legal guardian.” Under this policy though, we would still have an issue with hiding the puberty/anatomy/sexuality books away, which is disturbing to many of us, because we view this as important information that actually helps to keep children safe from real-world threats.
Changes to the Reconsideration Process
One of the more reasonable changes was a restructured process for book challenges:
Only county residents may submit a challenge for books that the library actually owns (this is already the case.)
Only one title may be challenged at a time.
Each county board will review no more than five titles per quarter.
Challenges would be submitted to the County Library Manager, who would bring them to the County Library Board. That board could retain, reshelve, or remove the book. Appeals could then be made to the GCHRLB for a final decision. While this new process does attempt to prevent mass abuse of the system, I have concerns about the lack of guaranteed input from professional librarians in decision-making under this version.
Columbia County Rejects the Changes — and Moves to Dissolve Its Own Library Board
Despite these revisions, some of which were clearly aimed at addressing Columbia County’s concerns — the county’s five representatives voted as a bloc to reject the updated policy. This effectively blocked the changes, despite legal counsel’s involvement and the frustration voiced by board members from other counties. It’s important to remember that Columbia County’s own legal counsel warned back in August 2023 that policies targeting LGBTQ-themed books were unlikely to hold up in court (at approximately 25:42 on the linked YouTube video.) Nevertheless, the county has continued to disregard professional and legal advice, opting instead to follow the guidance of politically connected individuals with no legal training.
According to agenda documents posted online, Columbia County is proposing to dissolve the Columbia County Library Board entirely, even though their formal withdrawal from the regional library system doesn’t take effect until January 2026. This proposal will be discussed at the Community and Emergency Services Committee meeting on Tuesday, June 24, 2025, at 8:30 AM. I can’t help but view this as a deliberate move to silence community voices, particularly those who have been speaking out against the shelving guidelines at public meetings. If the County Board is dissolved now, there will be no local public library board to address, and not much accountability, outside of Commission meetings, before Columbia County completes its separation from the regional system. It also leaves just two GCHRLB meetings where any of these decisions could be discussed publicly, which they probably will not discuss Columbia County specifically, and the county has given no indication that they’ll share updates on governance, policies, or future plans in the meantime.
Final Thoughts
The proposed revisions to the Collection Development Policy weren’t perfect, but they offered a path toward clarity, legal compliance, and a more manageable challenge process. Columbia County’s decision to block them, and now to dissolve its own library board early, is part of a broader trend where political control is prioritized over public transparency and professional standards. At the heart of this, one question remains: Who decides what’s available in your public library — trained professionals serving the whole community, or a group advancing a political agenda?
I hope our county government understands - we’re not going anywhere. We will keep showing up and we will continue advocating for libraries that serve everyone!
Karin Parham
CEO, Freedom To Read Coalition of Columbia County