Library limit still unclear, Homeless policy has some gaps

July 14, 2006 

 

Worcester Telegram & Gazette (MA)

By Matthew Stone SPECIAL TO THE TELEGRAM & GAZETTE

 

WORCESTER— The public library system lacks any firm criteria it can use to determine who is subject to a two-item borrowing limit at Worcester’s three library branches, the Telegram & Gazette has found.

 

Critics call the library policy arbitrary and discriminatory toward the homeless and those with disabilities. The policy is now the subject of a lawsuit filed last week in U.S. District Court.

 

The library maintains a list of addresses that, if supplied by someone registering for a library card, limit that applicant to borrowing a maximum of two items per library visit. The list, dated Dec. 8, 2005, includes 32 addresses divided into categories labeled “Transitional Housing Programs,” “Homeless Shelters” and “Teen/Children’s Programs.” The library does not recognize those addresses as permanent, thus subjecting those residents to the two-item borrowing limit. Patrons with permanent addresses can borrow up to 40 items.

 

Worcester Public Library head librarian Penelope B. Johnson said the categories are not definitive.

 

“The only reason we have those different categories — they’re not necessarily accurate — is because of the different relationships we’re having with (the agencies),” Ms. Johnson said.

 

She said that social service agencies end up on the library’s list when “they come to our attention,” often through returned postal mail sent to card applicants at those addresses.

 

That methodology has left the library with an incomplete list of social service agencies in the city, thus subjecting some agencies to the two-item limit while other agencies have no limit imposed on them.

 

A Telegram & Gazette review found the library list — which was obtained through a public records request by the community group Real Solutions — does not include some 10 shelters and temporary residence programs in the city that would fall into one of the three categories.

 

“Why are we picking just some folks?” asked Kevin Ksen, who has been involved in meetings with the library leading up to last week’s lawsuit. “Let’s not pick groups of people because they’re easy to pick on and restrict their privileges.”

 

Ms. Johnson said the library put the two-item policy in place because residents of transitional homes and homeless shelters fail to return items more often than patrons from other demographics. The library has not publicly documented exact figures for the losses incurred but says that it continues to lose items disproportionately from those without permanent addresses.

 

“This is our issue, that we’re losing books and we have no way to follow up with the individual who has moved on to another location,” she said. “This was not an easy decision.”

 

Social service agencies have largely been satisfied with the policy, Ms. Johnson said.

 

But not all agencies listed are aware of their status at the library. Ms. Johnson said an agency could still appear on the list even if it has not been in communication with the library. Officials at the Devereux School in Rutland and Starting Point in Worcester, both residential programs for children, were unaware of their status, for example.

 

“We haven’t had any problems with the library as far as I know,” said Lew Wilds, Starting Point director.

 

Jonathan L. Mannina, executive director of Legal Assistance Corp., which filed the case with the American Civil Liberties Union, said members should be judged on an individual basis. The library should not restrict privileges based on a group to which a particular person may belong, he said.

 

“They should really be focusing on individuals who are not complying with library policies,” Mr. Mannina said.

 

The library’s two-item policy, Mr. Mannina said, rests on shaky constitutional ground.

 

“To the extent they have no real criteria of who is a temporary resident, that also raises serious due process and First Amendment concerns because of the vagueness of the policy,” he said.

 

Mr. Ksen and others have said during their months of meetings with library and city officials, before they filed the lawsuit, library officials were resistant to disclosing information about the policy. They still have not publicly disclosed exact losses from items checked out and not returned by what the library calls transient residents.

 

“This (policy) wasn’t based on statistics in every way,” Mr. Ksen said. “There was no forthcomingness for data.”

 

Some have questioned whether all programs listed by the library can even be considered temporary addresses. Patients who check into Worcester State Hospital, for example, often remain there indefinitely.

 

“We’re just trying to work out a way that the resources get returned so they’re available for other people, for everyone,” Ms. Johnson said.

 

Contact Matthew Stone by e-mail at mstone@telegram.com.