[A local resident made the statement below at the SPLD board meeting on March 23, 2026.]
I would like to address the proposal to change the reconsideration policy.
I believe it is premature to rewrite a policy that has not yet been implemented in a fair and unbiased way. Before creating new rules, we need to ensure the current process is being followed with integrity.
Right now, there are clear concerns about how reconsideration committees are being formed and how they are operating. Some individuals selected for these committees have publicly stated that they would never support removing a book under any circumstances. That alone calls into question whether reviews are being conducted objectively.
We also have a concrete example from the last meeting. A gentleman stated that he served on two reconsideration committees for books that Allison appealed—despite the fact that she did not pull duplicate names when she came in and randomly pulled paper slips with names on it. That raises serious concerns about how committee members are being selected and whether these committees are, in effect, being stacked.
Additionally, public records show that committee discussions have, at times, included judgments about the individuals submitting requests, rather than focusing strictly on the content, age appropriateness, and placement of the material. That is not a neutral or fair process—that is bias.
There are also repeated claims that sexually explicit content benefits minors by fostering empathy or helping them see themselves reflected. There is significant evidence that early exposure to explicit sexual content can be harmful and even re-traumatizing for minors. That evidence cannot be ignored and needs to be presented to any committee that reviews sexually explicit content for minors.
So before this board considers rewriting policy, I am asking for something very simple: ensure the current policy is applied fairly, consistently, and without bias. And if changes are made, they must be grounded in clear, evidence-based standards—not assumptions.
Until that happens, changing the policy does not solve the problem—it risks reinforcing it.
Thank you.
Comments are closed.