Reference page
Emily Green asked who chooses school-library books in April 2024. A 2025 state report later found clearer rules for removing challenged books than for choosing them. Follow the questions, drafts and votes that led to a review of those purchases.
How did Utah’s school-library review plan take shape, and how did RatedBooks.org appear in the discussions and draft survey?
The dates show when RatedBooks entered the discussion and survey, alongside the Board’s other review decisions.
Then follow the full chronology, beginning in 2024, or jump to the August 4–6 email chain.
In 2022, Utah lawmakers required school districts and charter schools to establish a process for reviewing “sensitive materials” in schools. They adopted policies for challenging books and removing materials.
In 2024, lawmakers revised the law to define “objective” and “subjective” sensitive materials and clarify how reviews should work. Districts and charter schools then updated their policies to follow the revised law.
Read the June 2025 audit’s background on the law (printed pages 1–2).
The auditors looked at how schools handled book challenges. They did not search for other books that might contain sensitive material if those books had never been challenged or removed statewide.
They also said there was no clear, agreed-upon way to decide whether a book was too sensitive. Those decisions were supposed to be made by local review groups.
The auditors found two problems:
The auditors said most of the problems they found came from changes to the law between 2022 and 2024.
Read the June audit’s scope and findings (printed page 20).
A separate October 2025 report reviewed the content of 22 books. Read the October 2025 book review (Report 2025-28) (PDF, page 14)
Staff named in the emails Leah V. oversees student achievement for the Board. Debbie D. leads its internal audit office. Their emails show how Green asked about turning the review into an audit.
In August 2026, Green asked the Board to look at who picks the books, who pays for them, which sellers and book lists schools use, and what checks happen before books arrive. Her plan follows the buying process from start to finish.
During a discussion of who could serve on book-review committees, Green asked whether school staff selected and ordered books or whether vendors sent preselected orders automatically. If distributors chose the books, she argued, the conflict-of-interest language would concern them. Davina S., USBE’s library media specialist, answered that librarians, educators, and district staff normally select books using their local policies.
Automatically transcribed from this clip. Check words and names against the recording.
Here's and here's one more concern that comes back to procurement, which I still haven't received an answer to. And I'd like an answer. And if it's not today, if anybody that that knows this can get back to us. Are we physically procuring our order forms for the books that come to our libraries? Or do we receive procured orders that are delivered automatically to the schools?
If that if the second is the case as a standard in our working relationship with these vendors, then in essence, it's the distributors that can't be on the committee. Okay, let's get some further information from Davina. What do you have to say to that? I think the standard generally is that books are being there. It's not a list or like a box of books that shows up at the library. It's the standard is that the librarians, educators, district people use the selection criteria of their policy to select books for their libraries and classroom libraries.
Do we know, do we, do districts ever receive orders procured from vendors? That they did not solicit themselves. I'm trying to think in my library, I had a local bookstore donate books to me, but I would go through that book that box differently than I would go through a box of books.
And that was rare, I would say in five years in that library, I probably got two boxes of books from them. There's no procurement, like I, maybe, this never happened to me, and as a district librarian, I never had any of my libraries that I knew of that were getting like boxes of books sent to them from vendors or publishers. Davina, what about the book bundles? I know a couple years ago, those were real popular, bundle a whole bunch of books and you bought a certain grouping. Are those not taking place anymore?
I'm not hearing about the, I never actually have ever experienced that myself as a district librarian, supervising library in the library. I have heard about what you're talking about, but I personally have not at, in a large district, that was not something that was commonplace. And do we give recommendation at the state level that that's probably not a really great idea? No. No. Okay. Okay. So it's safe to say then that in our, our local school districts, there are specific people that are physically procuring orders of books that are delivered and received at their schools.
As opposed to a publisher, is that what you're, you're referencing there? Yes, we have staff, educators, librarians that are purchasing books. I would say that's the norm. It's individuals at schools and districts that are purchasing materials using selection criteria policies to do so. Okay. Thank you. You bet. Okay. I'm good with the way it is right now. It may get a little bit of a tweak by next, by board meeting, but I think I'm comfortable with this currently.
Great. Let's talk a little bit. And I was going to say, Vice Chair Green, if you would like more, like further information on that question, we can get some before the next meeting. We can get with Adam heard as well about procurement or even with the librarians. Okay. Yeah. That would be great. I think it's, yeah, that would be very helpful. Thanks. Thank you. All right. So the next.
The answer and follow-up: Davina distinguished donated books from purchases and said routine unsolicited shipments or bundles were uncommon in her earlier district work. The state did not recommend against bundles, and local staff normally placed orders. Another participant said the committee wording could be adjusted before the Board meeting. Staff offered help from Adam H. or librarians; Green welcomed it.
The May 2, 2024 packet proposes conflict-of-interest limits for R277-628 review committees. It names book purchasers and challengers as examples. This follows April’s purchase discussion, but remains draft language rather than the final rule.
The clause is in Draft 3, dated April 22, 2024, lines 62–64 (packet page 419).
Auditors say an unnamed legislator supplied a book list. A footnote identifies RatedBooks.org as the source of the list they used. Green’s Aug 4, 2026 memo cites the audit.
At an interim committee hearing, Vice Chair Bollinger says the Board should look at companies that sell books in bulk and at AI screening tools.
Automatically transcribed from this clip. Check words and names against the recording.
time, I'm reaching out to librarians to understand the procurement process. Like, what is it? What does it take to get a book? And if you stock your business shelves, you know that there are many, many, many levels that go into curating an order, picking that, shipping that, receiving that, inventorying that, cataloging that, placing it on the shelves, and then the process of that being used. So, this is not like it's accidental. It's not like we are completely
ignorant to, if we praise the specialists, you know, and our experts, then there is a job that, librarians are, have to undertake now. They need to understand the increase and desire, you know, for these industries to push these novels to the detriment of our children. And again, they have been unaccounted. There's no accountability to this happening. And we have seen champions in the state of Utah that have taken great effort to create systems that allow us to see and to filter through
novel upon novel upon novel upon novel of harmful to minors and pornographic materials. And it's got to stop. We are at a point, it has to stop. We should not be funding this in our schools. Parents should not be sending their kids to school, where they are exposed to this material over and over and over again. And we're just going to turn a blind eye. This is our product. This, the materials that we have in that setting is us. We are the adults in the room. And we know that there comes a point where we have to
figure this out. And the way that I see it as well, there is no recourse. And these adults that agree with this mock and spit in these parents' face and say, ha, grow up. Kids want this. They do this all the time. We should do this. It's a new trend. We want to be hip. Like all the arguments that are just so silly when we know parents that are, that want to send their kids to school, to learn, to get smart, to be protected, to become the best that they can be, and not be exposed to things that is harmful
to minors. And I will say at the beginning of this, it says harmful to minors. In the very last sentence, it says harmful material. I would argue that it's actually very cohesive throughout. It's time, it's time we take the next step. If the industry is, has open access, open season to the biggest market in our nation, which is public education and its libraries and millions of children, it is time that we do something about this. And I support this motion.
Amber Boggess.
Green said she had asked librarians how books are ordered, shipped, recorded, and put on shelves. She argued that books she viewed as harmful were reaching students through this process. She supported Member Boggess’s separate proposal to seek changes to Utah’s harmful-to-minors laws. The Board voted to put that proposal off until January.
Jennie Earl emailed Emily Green and Joann Brinton on 2026-05-05 at 6:20 a.m. MDT. The subject was “suggested changes.” The email links to an online draft policy on library materials. The draft is linked in the message, not attached to it.
A GRAMA request for a copy of the linked online document is pending as of October 1, 2026.
Email addresses are shortened to the domain and phone numbers are removed. The document link is formatted for readability. A redacted copy of the original email is available below.
At 2:18:38 in the Standards and Assessment recording, the committee is discussing a 30-day hold on new acquisitions. The speaker-labeled captions identify Brinton as proposing a vendor-rating approach like the one she describes in Texas. They identify Earl as saying that would require a legislative request.
The vendor-rating idea was raised as an alternative to the 30-day pause. These speaker identifications come from the meeting captions.
Automatically transcribed from this clip. Check words and names against the recording.
Yeah, I'm okay with removing the 30 days. I like that. I'm just looking at what some other states have done. And Texas requires that vendors who sell to school libraries actually evaluate all materials and issue a rating of sexually explicit or sexually relevant. And if it's challenged and found that they rated it incorrectly, they send it back and require them to relook at it or face being barred from selling to Texas libraries and so I wonder if we look at doing something like that instead of making more work on the librarians that would be a legislative request right you're kind
of leaning into a legislative request which we can make as the board during the summer going into next year so that we're holding those that are providing the materials more accountable to what they're giving us for our students and then yeah and then some of the other states have their districts like the school libraries just have to have an online portal so that parents can get on and look at the books that are in their school libraries and i you know maybe some of our schools do that but we don't mandate that currently right now that is in law oh it is in law okay so they
are supposed to have an online search they do have that okay supposed to so all right all right so we're going to go ahead with this motion then we are going to take a five minute break for all this body here to go stretch their legs and get a drinks
What is heard: A member says she is “okay with removing the 30 days.” She describes Texas as requiring vendors to rate materials and says she wonders about “something like that instead of making more work on the librarians.” Another member says that “would be a legislative request,” which the Board could make over the summer. The first member then raises online portals for parents, and another member says that is already in law. The captioner’s transcript labels the first speaker Board Member Brinton and the second Board Member Earl. The Texas description is the speaker’s own account.
Automatically transcribed from this clip. Check words and names against the recording.
do you want to do you want to do that right now mindful of can we just take five minutes or three or two let me just make it um if we want more time to think about it and then anyway and it might be it might need to be placed in a different space actually but let me just go ahead and make this motion and this is coming from our meeting last week or two weeks ago um just move that the standards and assessment committee direct staff to conduct a comprehensive review and audit and
again i don't know if that's appropriate here if this is what that word should be a public school library material selection and acquisition practices in utah including funding sources procurement procedures vendor and publisher relationships librarian qualifications and training collection development standards distribution influence and the role of professional organizations in shaping library policies and purchasing decisions and this is um i can speak to it real quick go ahead i i think that there is still um uh just that's that there's just still a little bit of a space that exists that i
think we're almost at where we can fully um understand the relationship between our our school libraries and you know publishers and distribution centers and all of that um at large you know vendor procurement i said again it's like an order is is procured it's picked it's created it's shipped it's received it's inventory and um i think that i just and the state of utah would really love to have an understanding of what this is um so that we are we don't have to continue to be reactive to an industry um that has full access to you know a
a minority population like we have a very important stewardship over this um institution that we are creating public education and so i just thought being able to kind of do a deep dive and understand what that looks like and what i want to do with that is to butt it up against you know our sensitive materials rule and and just uh see what we can see and we can fully speak to it so again like i i mentioned last meeting that it seems that it would be our librarians that are in the hot seat and i
don't i don't think any of us want our librarians to be in that seat i also um follow the you know the news article that came out that said oh it's just you know it's just parents that are doing this we have a rule that parents have to do the work but we also are trying to acknowledge that we have professionals that are doing their job and so we have a lot of kind of reactive and things that we need to really figure out and i just think that this would help us sort out the
complexities of this and hopefully simplify where um maybe things have gone wrong and we can kind of maybe even um communicate better to that um i don't know industry at large um and and protect that relationship we have with being stewards over people's children um offering the best that we can and encouraging an industry to be aware that um it's not it's not free reign anymore but also doing it thoughtful and educated way so just one clarification okay i agree i agree at this there's not going to be
time to get this ready for june no no no no okay okay i just wanted to make sure a backup is due next week and i can i'm not sure if it's going into panic mode or not because i am a little bit going on is it okay if we go for august on this information i think we're flexible like and you know how about some feedback okay the the other thing is like it might fall under an audit again i don't know if if this is the right space but i i am looking for a very thoughtful thorough kind of
understanding and investigation into those relationships okay okay what uh any other comments on that if not we will take a um do we need to put a month on it i don't i don't know i'm kind of thinking through this a little bit i need it to be done before i know i know that's that's why i'm like um i don't even see how this could be done by august because you're i mean i know davis school district is out on friday i don't know about other districts but now you're looking at librarian qualifications so you're looking at i have what 92 schools in my district in in
davis alone what are the library qualifications for each of those you're going to happen to do a survey into every school in the and and half of them won't be we'll have you know halftime secretaries for the next three months um i don't do you think davina could bring us back maybe a timeline of what she thinks this would take for next month and maybe start if there's pieces that could be done does that sound like a a timeline of what this might look like if we were to do more deep dive
that that would probably be better just because i'm looking at that just that single one alone that library qualification is is going to be a heavy lift um okay that can we put um maybe just at the end of that um staff will or somewhere their staff will bring up a timeline next month as to what they would think this would take does that sound do you think that's doable by next week to get a rough type of timeline for us okay see a thumbs up okay board member green does that work for you yes okay okay so let me just read
this out real quick we're trying to hurry so we can get sarah to her meeting uh moved to the standards assessment committee direct staff to bring back a timeline for conducting a comprehensive review and audit of public school library materials selection and acquisition practices in utah including funding sources procurement procedures vendor and publisher relationships uh librarian qualifications and training collection development standards distributor influence and and the role of professional organizations and shaping library policies and purchasing decisions all those in favor aye aye aye aye okay that passes unanimously
At Standards and Assessment item 1.6, Green sought a broad library review and audit covering funding, vendors, librarian qualifications and organizational influence. Members questioned whether school surveys could be completed while staff were away for summer. Green revised the motion to seek a realistic timeline first. It passed unanimously.
The proposal then moved through a Jun 5, 2026 funding request, a Jul 14, 2026 first reading, and an Aug 6, 2026 full Board vote.
May 18, 2026: Green sends her proposed motion to Leah V., the deputy superintendent who works with the Standards and Assessment Committee. Later that day, Green asks Debbie D., who leads the Board’s internal audit office, whether the review could become a formal audit. On May 19, Debbie D. explains the steps and staff time a formal audit would require and sends a partly filled request form.
Debbie D.’s 1:22 p.m. reply mentions the form but did not include it. At 1:43 p.m., Green asks if an attachment was missing (public excerpt). Debbie D.’s 1:45 p.m. follow-up includes the Redacted public copy: partly filled project-prioritization form (Word).
Email addresses are shortened to the domain and phone numbers are removed. The original file has them.
Email addresses are shortened to the domain and phone numbers are removed. The original file has them.
Automatically transcribed from this clip. Check words and names against the recording.
60 60 anybody got 60 I I would go as far as 45 but I wouldn't go beyond that because this is this is a book that's sitting now on but is it it's gone it's pulled you're under the subjective not the objective any longer is that true Davina Southoff library media specialist teaching and learning so once a initial review happens and the two individuals at the LEA review and think there's a plausible claim the book is removed from student access and the other thing I
would add is that when we are talking about days we might want to consider school days just because we have summer breaks and schools will be out of session and trying to pull people back in over a summer break might cause some concern there so you're saying it's still removed during this time even if it's gone through that I didn't remember that I thought once it went through the the initial process and the objective sensitive materials process that it could be if there's a plausible claim of sensitive materials it's removed from
student access okay okay I wonder and let's make it 60 days just kidding school days do you want to make that she didn't even hear it it wasn't even worth it I heard you I just know I'm just trying to figure out what that well does 30 school days make it enough because then that adds in weekends and that's like I think 30 school days how long is it and you you've been seeing this what is the normal how long is it taking to usually get that writing committee to meet this is this is their initial meeting on
that this is the subjective materials piece yeah I am not sure okay how long it is taking I hear just kind of bits and pieces from the field that it is difficult to pull a committee together parents are busy faculty staff are busy so I mean we don't want to drag it out forever and also being cognizant of the time schedules of everyone I wondered too I have just seen that rated books org is now free and open to the public is that a resource that our librarians and school districts can be made aware of so that they could more easily
look at reviews and content in books so I believe our previous a AG talked about rated books and I don't remember if it was in a committee meeting or if it was in an email thread just that potentially that the the perspectives that in which that this is not a you know industry standard website that is reviewing books based on the way that professional industry reviews titles and so they may be looking at titles in a different way through a different lens than what we would want a title to be reviewed at and does
anybody remember that conversation with our a AG I just think it was if I remember right it was that we that they're maybe using a variety of resources and not there was something and I can't remember the specifics but in you know an individual person versus an organization or something like that but that doesn't that doesn't prohibit someone from using several sources to review their content because if you know you can go to several sources and get different there's quite a few out there right now so and I think a lot of districts are aware of the different resources we have some on our page and there's some
others out there it's an it's an easy thing to go and kind of just get a general feel and then go through from there if you get something you're interested in I don't know where we are at 60 60 30 days yeah what do we I just feel like reasonable time needs a parameter and I'm I'm not sure what that parameter needs to be 60 school day or 30 school days something like that
During discussion of how long local book reviews should take, Vice Chair Joann Brinton raised RatedBooks.org as a publicly available resource. Davina S., USBE’s library media specialist, said it was not an industry-standard website. Chair Jennie Earl separately said several sources could be used.
Automatically transcribed from this clip. Check words and names against the recording.
The other thing, would it be helpful if I, like I've been trying to research, you know, organization influences and how this other realm works. I've come across a list of organizations that exist and are utilized and help, you know, make our public libraries functional. So you've got the School Library Journal, you've got the Booklist, Kirkus Reviews, Publishers Weekly, National Council of Teachers of English, International Society for Technology and Education. Some major vendors and distributors are Follett Content Solutions.
You have Mackin Educational Resources, Permabound Books, Junior Library Guild, Ingram Content Group, Baker and Taylor. And then you've got the others like Scholastic, Penguin, Harper and Collins, McMillan, Simon and... Would it be helpful if I send those to you? Because those are, that's like the specific lane. I'm looking to see like what those relationships look like. And I don't know if you've rolled that into the supply chain and procurement part of what you've given us. And I'm asking, because if I need to make a motion now, I can.
If we're flexible on that, I'm more than happy to share what I've personally been collecting and researching, what would be best. I'm always open to more information. So please share. I'm very familiar with all of those names that you mentioned as well. So, okay. I don't know how the committee feels if, if I need to put that into any of, you know, make an amendment. Maybe board member Green, when you send something for it, maybe just send it to the committee too. Does that make sense? So that we're in the loop?
Yeah, absolutely. And if we, if we just want to look at...
Green named review journals and suppliers, including Kirkus Reviews, Publishers Weekly, Ingram and Baker & Taylor, while asking whether their influence and school-library relationships fell within the review. Staff welcomed her research and asked her to send the list to the committee.
The timeline Green emailed to Mike G. on Aug 4, 2026 names “professional review journals (e.g., School Library Journal, Kirkus), or rubrics.”
Automatically transcribed from this clip. Check words and names against the recording.
So we might just set this because we have one more item to go to. We're going to set this aside for just a second. We're trying to make sure how we can ask because it wasn't cited. Does that make sense? So it was within the backup, yeah. Jenny? Yeah. What if to your point about asking leadership about it, but ask leadership to send it to law and licensing in July? Oh, okay. So law and licensing is having a July meeting. So we can request leadership just so that we can make sure it's an action item.
The problem we're running into is it's not, although it wasn't noticed, although we don't adhere to public comment. Yeah, okay. Okay, so we'll have to see if this can be on the agenda. Let's get what we want to go on and request that maybe leadership consider putting this on law and licensing so that it can actually have a vote behind it. So I think it would be moving forward, the recommended policy consideration, the monitoring. What did we title it? How did we title it?
Give me a second. Let me find it. The school library monitoring timeline? Yes, so I guess, Board Member Green, do you want to make that motion and then just ask that we consider using $50,000 to $60,000 of discretionary funds, and then we can hammer that out a little bit more with Scott Jones and make sure we've got the right amount there. And why don't you just do $60,000 and then what we'll do is if we can request that is amended if it changes. Okay, and just for clarification, last month's meeting, where that motion was made, why was that bumped underneath?
Was it because it fell underneath the sensitive materials or should it have been its own agenda item because the motion was made? Yeah, it was put under sensitive materials, but it wasn't cited as a separate action item as far as requesting funding for it. Okay, so I would move that we move that we move the comprehensive school library monitoring timeline forward to law and licensing's July meeting,
requesting, requesting $60,000 in funding. From discretionary funds? From discretionary funds. Okay. And then do I need to clarify and to move forward to full board in the August 2026 meeting? Yeah, I think that would be appropriate. Yeah, that would work. Okay, so the, well, let me read it and then if there's any discussion.
Yeah, after library we need the word monitoring, if you don't mind. Okay, so let me read it and if we need to adjust anything we can. That the committee ask board leadership to add the comprehensive school library monitoring timeline to the July long licensing committee meeting, requesting $60,000 from the discretionary funds and to move the timeline forward to the full board meeting in August. Okay, all those in favor? Okay, all those in favor? All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed?
Okay, board member Real is in opposition there were four before this, so okay, we have one more item.
Green asked Board leadership to add the timeline to the July Law and Licensing meeting, request $60,000 from discretionary funds, and move it to the full board in August. It passed 4-1, with Member Reale opposed.
Item 7.12. Hall moved to adopt the 2026 Timeline Policy, Draft 1, on first reading, propose $60,000 from Board discretionary funds, and forward it to the full Board for second and final reading. The committee motion passed unanimously, with Longacre absent. In the recording, staff explain the change from “audit” to “monitoring.”
The Jul 14, 2026 Summary of Actions repeats the May 18, 2026 motion text under Jun 5, 2026 and calls the 4–1 vote unanimous. Those statements differ from the Jun 5, 2026 record.
Automatically transcribed from this clip. Check words and names against the recording.
Okay, thank you. Member Lear. Thanks. I had some similar questions, and Davina might be the best person. I'm also kind of looking for what Emily envisioned. And when I first read this, and I maybe didn't do my homework as thoroughly as I should have, but help me know, and again, between Emily and Davina, help me envision what does this look like? Because you've said a review and an audit. So I don't know if that means auditors. I think you said that the information would be self-reported.
I'm also concerned that only because we haven't had any challenges come from charter schools, doesn't necessarily mean that there are not collections there that we need to know about. And so I'm equally concerned that three out of a hundred and almost 30 charter schools is not a very helpful picture. So I know I'm mixing issues in there, but help me look like what this review would look like. And if we would also be using some of this money to pay for auditors.
Sabine, are you up for responding to that? Yes, happy to answer that. And Board Member Lear, you actually reminded me that one of the things we looked at with the charters was just the number of students. And so we had only a handful of charters that had, you know, more than a thousand students. So that was another contribution to the decision there. Not without saying that. I mean, it would be a simple thing to add more charters if the committee felt like that was an important thing to do. So we would be happy to do that. And then to. I'm sorry, the process, the process, the process.
So. So but your question about audit, so this because we have language and code that defines what an audit is, This would not be an audit. There would not be auditors participating in this process. It would be solely completed by staff and then the work of the LEAs. And so we've shifted that language from audit to monitoring. So we're basically looking at the school library programs across the state and then evaluating them based on the information that we're collecting in these different phases. So it would not be an audit in official capacity in any way.
What is heard: Lear asks what the review would look like and whether the $60,000 would pay for auditors. A staff member, addressed as Davina S., answers that code defines an audit and “this would not be an audit.” She says staff and the local school systems would do the work and that “we’ve shifted that language from audit to monitoring.”
Automatically transcribed from this clip. Check words and names against the recording.
okay all right i got it back are we ready yes sir all right i'm going to make the motion that the committee adopt the 2026 timeline policy draft one is this the motion that we're making yes okay that the committee adopt the 2026 timeline policy draft one on first reading and appropriate $60,000 from board discretionary funds for implementation and forward to the board for approval on second and final reading. So the motion before the committee
is that the committee adopt the 2026 timeline policy draft one on first reading and appropriate $60,000 from board discretionary funds for implementation and forward to the board for approval on second and final reading. let's just take a roll call vote board member Lear yes board member Hall yes by share Bollinger yes and I am also a yes that passes a unanimously with board member Longacre missing board member Green thank you for taking the
time please safe travels on your journey back home
What is heard: After the chair asks Hall to make the motion, a member moves to adopt the 2026 Timeline Policy, Draft 1, on first reading, appropriate $60,000 from board discretionary funds and forward it to the Board for second and final reading. In the roll call Lear, Hall and Bollinger say yes, and the chair adds “I am also a yes.” The chair announces that it “passes unanimously with Board Member Longacre missing.”
At 10:25:55 a.m. local time, Emily Green emailed Mike G. from her state account with the subject “Library Monitoring Document.” She attached “School Library Monitoring Timeline - June 5 2026.pdf.” Its contents match the timeline in the public Aug 6, 2026 Board packet.
August 4 emails trace the draft: Green sent Mike G. the June timeline; he returned a survey naming RatedBooks; she circulated revisions; staff prepared the packet. On August 6, the Board included the addendum as a starting point for staff and committee work. The emails identify the sender of this draft, not every contributor.
At 12:17 p.m., Mike G. emailed Emily Green. His subject was “Survey Draft.” He attached USBE_Library_Acquisition_Review_Survey_DRAFT_Aug2026.docx.
Its Table C-1 has a row reading “Content-rating rubrics or sites
(identify, e.g., RatedBooks.org).” It sits in a list of sources that
respondents mark as used regularly, used occasionally, or not used.
The message text is blank.
Green’s memo describes the $60,000 as approved in June. The records show three steps: the June 5 committee requested the funding; the July 14 committee approved the plan on first reading and proposed the $60,000 appropriation; and the full Board adopted the amended plan and funding on August 6.
Group 1 went to 4 addresses at 5:27. Group 2 went to 4 at 5:30. Group 3 went to 6 at 5:34. The 14 addresses are distinct. The Word file attached to all three has the same contents as the one sent to Cybil P. The text says: “Over the past several months, I have been working to develop a set of questions.” The message texts differ.
Jennie Earl replied to the second group email. She suggested “Other suppliers” as a label for a graph above C-17 and asked about the size and usability of B-2.
Email addresses are shortened to the domain and phone numbers are removed. The original file has them.
Davina S. forwards Green’s survey to Julie C. at 12:15 p.m. At 12:18 p.m., Julie C. forwards it to Leah V. and Amy H., copying Meghan E., and says she wants them aware of Board Member Green’s intentions. Lear supports an optional planning guide and says she is unsure about requiring the document for all school districts and charters. Bollinger writes: “Is this document something you put together yourself or is this something that you have been working on with staff?” and adds “I appreciate all of your work on this topic!” Cindy Davis asks for a PDF in a separate email dated Aug 13, 2026.
Email addresses are shortened to the domain and phone numbers are removed. The original file has them.
Email addresses are shortened to the domain and phone numbers are removed. The original file has them.
Email addresses are shortened to the domain and phone numbers are removed. The original file has them.
Email addresses are shortened to the domain and phone numbers are removed. The original file has them.
The Cindy Davis reply included below was sent August 13, at 7:12 a.m. MDT, after the August 5 exchanges. She asked Green for a PDF because she could not load the document. Cindy Davis is a Board member; Debbie D., the audit chief in the May correspondence, is a different person.
Cybil P. tells Green that, after their conversation, she removed the memo’s final paragraph and will upload the memo and supporting document to Board agenda item 7.12. The attached PDF still has the RatedBooks row (printed page 12).
Email addresses are shortened to the domain and phone numbers are removed. The original file has them.
The date line reads “August 4, 2026.” The packet extract is 23 pages (1232 to 1254). Page 1232 is a one-page memo; the survey is the other 22 pages, the same page count as the PDF Cybil P. emailed. The RatedBooks row (“Content-rating rubrics or sites (identify, e.g., RatedBooks.org)”) is on the 13th page of the extract, packet page 1244. The meeting discussion includes both “August 24th” (2026) and “August 4th” (2026); the document itself is dated Aug 4, 2026. The packet is public meeting record event 535, file 2221.
The full Board adopted the amended library review plan on second and final reading, appropriating $60,000 from discretionary funds and including Green’s addendum. The chair announced ten in favor, one abstention, and two no votes (Reale and Lear). The draft minutes instead list eleven in favor, one abstention, two no votes, and one absent. The written and announced final tallies differ.
The addendum votes answered two different questions. An amendment would have replaced “include” with “consider,” leaving Green’s questionnaire for staff to consider rather than including it in the plan. That amendment failed 6–9. The Board then voted 10–5 to include the addendum. Members continued questioning its workload and whether it would become the final survey.
Before the final plan vote, the Board allowed staff to adjust the timeline and included the memorandum explaining that the survey instrument was a starting point for staff refinement and committee discussion, not a final form. That clarification preserved staff’s ability to develop the survey after the earlier vote to include the addendum.
Automatically transcribed from this clip. Check words and names against the recording.
I've followed this for a really long time. I've already said a lot of words. I've already spoken in, you know, standards and assessment. Thank you, law and licensing for allowing me to come. Maybe this is more towards finance committee. But I've just been, yeah, compiling a lot of information. I'm viewing this review through the industry lens, not through like the educational realm, but this is more on the front line. And so, and I just have the, this is, I'm just going to read it briefly. It's just a little tiny paragraph, but I think it sums it up so I can get right to
the point. We can move on. It's the memorandum there. This is the second paragraph just states that this instrument, this, excuse me, this survey, it's just meant to do three things that the outline does not yet fully do. So the first is that it just translates the reviews objectives into the industry's own working terms. I've said there's the edu-speak of this, and there's kind of like the industry speak. There's the business language. My goal is like, it keeps veering off into the educational realm, but we need to keep it in this other realm,
which is why I've put in a lot of effort getting these specific questions. So it's to help kind of steer that. So I'm just going to read that again. First, it translates the reviews, objectives into the industry's own working terms, approval plans, standing orders, opening day collections, shelf-ready processing, cooperative contracts, curated selection lists, and so forth, so that questions match how the acquisitions actually occur and cannot be answered around. The second is that it follows the money in both directions, so what LEAs spend
and from which funds, and what flows between LEAs, vendors, and professional organizations in the form of dues, conference travel, incentives, grants, and donated materials. And then the third, it pairs nearly every question with verifiable record, so purchase orders, contracts, vendor manifests, training logs, so forth, so that the findings rest on documents rather than just recollection. So the questions I've just posed them is just deliberately neutral, factual, grounded in Utah's content standards, and just simply asking what is bought, from whom, under what terms, with whose money, using which lists, and then check by the steps that are in place.
Okay.
What is heard: The speaker thanks the committee for letting her come and reads the second paragraph of the memorandum. She says the survey does three things: it translates the review’s objectives “into the industry’s own working terms,” it “follows the money in both directions,” and it pairs nearly every question with a verifiable record such as purchase orders and contracts. She says the questions are “deliberately neutral.” The vote is in the next clip.
Automatically transcribed from this clip. Check words and names against the recording.
of this motion she's trying not to make eye contact with the motion okay so let me go ahead and state state the motion and it and we're almost at dinner time so we'll get there okay the motion is that the board adopt the 2026 timeline plan draft one as amended on second and final reading and appropriate sixty thousand dollars from board discretionary funds for implementation include the usbe library review addendum revised and give staff the flexibility to adjust the timeline to meet the requirements and that the instrument would be a starting point and to include the memorandum to
the usbe library review addendum document august 4 2026 member green draft one as part of the 2026 timeline plan which clarifies that the amendment documents are included for staff refinement and committee discussion not as a final form yeah it's a quote from the document okay seeing no lights let's vote
okay that motion passes 10 in favor one abstention chair hymas and two no votes being member real and member lear
and with that going back to you uh chair carrie from the committee uh that was the last item to be uh discussed from law and licensing thank you okay thank you with that it looks like we are ready for a dinner break okay there's salads and sandwiches so help yourselves yep
The conflicting vote counts concern one amendment: whether staff should consider Green’s questionnaire rather than include it in the review plan. The Board later voted separately to include the questionnaire and approve funding for the plan.
In the recording, the chair announces that the amendment fails, 6–9. The draft minutes instead record 9 in favor and 7 opposed. They list Kelley and Brinton as supporting the amendment and Jennie Earl as both supporting and opposing it—16 entries for a 15-member board.
Source: September 3, 2026 packet, pages 4031–4032, item 10.2.
The Board postponed the September 3 consent agenda until September 4. Before approving the minutes, members confirmed they were voting on the version with an edit already emailed to them. The discussion described Jennie Earl as appearing twice in the vote record. The draft had listed Earl in both columns for the failed “consider” amendment. The final corrected vote count is not confirmed.
Automatically transcribed from this clip. Check words and names against the recording.
Board members, just for your information, tomorrow we have four agenda items that we have sent, and then we also have consent to take care of tomorrow as well. We're going to skip that today, and that's going to carry over to Unfinished Business. With that, I would entertain a final motion. I move to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. Seconded. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. We're adjourned. Thank you.
What is heard: A Board member tells the Board that four agenda items are set for tomorrow and that the consent calendar will wait: “We’re going to skip that today, and that’s going to carry over to Unfinished Business.” The Board then adjourns by voice vote.
Automatically transcribed from this clip. Check words and names against the recording.
hands here so go ahead hold on sarah is frantically there we go question really quick uh there was an edit on the minutes from last board and that was so we don't need to make that here we just sit now we're approving the minutes with that edit made it made right yes just clarifying that was emailed to board members for clarity there was uh jenny voted twice yes yeah yeah okay i just want to make sure that we're voting on the ones that are updated okay thanks that was a good
clarification member booth go ahead i would move that we approve the consent calendar there's a motion to approve the consent calendar there is a second um we have virtual and in person so let's go ahead and vote on that and i will look for um member bogus is she with us online remember bogus
not hearing member hall yes thank you remember kelly yes thank you remember green yes thank you and member brinton yes thank you joe and i'm a yes also oh thank you davis is online now thank you member davis yes thank you and one one more call for member bogus okay that passes unanimously with one absent that being member bogus
okay thank you board members uh now if we happen to lose enough
Choose a section, then drag the chart to follow the arrows, or focus the chart and use the arrow keys. Use + and − to zoom. Each card opens its event and source notes below. For a straight reading order, use the event list.
Files cited in the timeline notes are listed once here. Source files open in a new tab. Video and audio are excerpts; the event notes provide context. A GRAMA request for the online draft linked in the May 5, 2026 email is pending.