Research to Update AL 320.1 Responding to Disruptive Conduct

AL 320.1 Responding to Disruptive Conduct Research

Committee: Teresa Matthews, (Chair ALM Downtown), Randy Wayland (Library Manager Midwest City), Kevin Cook (Circulation Northwest), Michelle Merriman (Lead Librarian Edmond), Sharon Riley (Librarian Bethany), Rebecca West (Circulation Warr Acres), Melody Kellogg (Senior Manager District 1),

The AL 320.1 committee was formed in February of 2017 to review system procedures when responding to disruptive conduct and to update/revise procedure to match the new AL 320 Policy and the Core Values of the MLS.

The committee met in February and March to discuss the changes that might be needed to the 320.1 document.  It was decided that due to the extent of revision the original 320.1 would be completely redlined and new version would be written.  A couple of items were identified for more extensive revision over the course of the early committee meetings:

1. The “Level” system of Educate/Warn/Evict.  Questions rose to the need to make them reflect the current and intended use by staff, security, and administration and whether the current Local Suspension (1 month/6 month) and System Wide Bar (2 years) was appropriate at all levels of violation or if it could be adjusted to give staff and administration flexibility to make the reaction match the level of violation.
   1. The use of level as relates to the violation and Level as relates to the degree that the MLS responded to the violation was confusing to some.  The same procedure was used whether a violation was minor or egregious.  The committee did not want the use of Level to imply that a violation was higher level.    The committee discussed how the word was used and alternatives that might convey the same pathway without using the word level.

i.The decision was made to use level when referring to violations but to use Step to refer to the process that MLS uses to respond to violations.  Step still gave the sense that there was a process without assigning a severity to the original transaction.

2. After discussion was held the decision to talk to front line staff and security about the use of local suspension and system wide bar/ban was made.  As a result of those conversations it was decided to send a poll to the Library Management team and to the Security department to ask if 1-6 month suspensions should be system wide or if there should be a short local suspension and anything 6 months and above would be System Wide.  The results of the poll showed that it was pretty evenly spread out as to keeping all short term suspensions local, making all suspensions system wide bars and dividing the two into short term suspensions but long term bars.
   1. The decision of the committee was to have a Step that was local (1-6 months) that could be used at the Manager's discretion to deal with minor violations as needed.  The next step would be a system bar that could be any length of time that was recommended by a Senior Manager and decided by the E.D. or their designee.

2. Situations that were not specifically identified in policy but that needed to reflect system wide procedure to ensure consistency across the system.  The two items most referenced were food/drink and unattended items. A third issue was identified when dealing with Service Animals but after discussion this was deemed a Federal/State issue with mandated procedure and it could be better dealt with in training.
   1. Food and Drink is not covered in the 320 Policy.  However, dealing with it was a common question that rose among staff.  Discussion points on this were: where to allow F/D, would an 'open' drink cause more of a problem than an oversized lidded drink, how to define lidded, where did the potential of spillage or stains fit into procedure, what was a disruption and what was just potentially offensive to others.  The committee reviewed the work done by the Food and Drink Committee (2016) and their recommendations along with the review of Peer Libraries posted policies on F/D.

i.The decision of the committee was to combine the points of the Food and Drink Committee and similar policy/procedure from peer libraries.  After review and input from Senior Managers and Kay Bauman the committee was asked to review the food and drink portion of 320.1 as it was felt that a procedure that was too specific would interfere with Core Values and not be adaptable to individual locations and would be better addressed in training.  The policy was rewritten to address food and drink only as an extension of any action that disrupts library services or disturbs others.  The committee has expressed concern that not having a specific procedure may lead to inconsistent member experience.  As currently written there is no procedure addressing food and drink.

2. Leaving items unattended was mentioned in policy, but there is no system wide procedure of what to do with items left or confiscated in the library.  To ensure a consistent experience the committee looked at the current procedure of their libraries as they represented a range of size and procedure and discussed how best to word a system wide guideline. Discussion was held on what items were most commonly left or found in the library, how much room was needed to store items, length of time items were held, danger of pests or contamination from items, and disposal of property.
   1. The decision was made to write up timelines and guidelines for items left or confiscated in the library.  Items with significant monetary value would be held for a very short period before being handed over to authorities.  Other items would be held for longer  periods barring pest or safety exposure.   There is question on whether flash drives are considered an item that falls into a valuable or a non-valuable item.

Time Line:

February 2017

• Committee Formed
• Review of current Policy
• Review of current Procedure

March 2017

• Research of peer libraries and beginning drafts of documents:
• 320.1 Responding to Disruptive Conduct
• Recommendations of Food and Drink Procedure
• Recommendations of Confiscation of Items

April 2017

• Redline version 320.1 sent for feedback from Senior Manager of Libraries Group
• Redline version 320.1 sent for feedback from 320 Policy Committee
• Redline version 320.1 shared with Library Managers Group
• Research document created and shared with committee
• Training issues identified by committee

Information gathered:

The committee used the system’s list of peer libraries to research other systems and their current procedures.  Some systems had policy/procedure reviewed online where available or inquiries were made by phone/email interview with administration.  Peer Libraries researched were: