Library Chief Draws Cops' Ire [and Sought ACLU Advice]

The Bergen Record ^ | June 22, 2006 | Merry Firschein

[plan2succeed.org]

HASBROUCK HEIGHTS, NJ -- Library Director Michele Reutty is under fire for refusing to give police library circulation records without a subpoena.

Reutty says she was only doing her job and maintaining the privacy of library patrons. But the mayor called it "a blatant disregard for the Police Department," which needed her help to identify a man who allegedly threatened a child.

Reutty, the director for 17 years, now faces possible discipline by the library board. Members of the Borough Council have suggested she receive punishment ranging from a letter of reprimand in her personnel file to a 30-day unpaid suspension. But the Library Board of Trustees said it would reserve judgment until a closed-door hearing next month.

Police received a report May 10 that a 12-year-old borough girl was allegedly sexually threatened by a man outside the municipal building. The library is on the second floor. The girl told her parents, who called police.

The suspect, who has been identified as a 23-year-old Hackensack man, did not molest the girl, said borough Police Chief Michael Colaneri. The investigation is ongoing through the Bergen County Prosecutor's Office, Colaneri said.

The girl told police the man was carrying a library book with a certain title. The next day, borough police detectives asked Reutty to tell them who took out that book.

Reutty said she refused to give the information to police without a subpoena -- in accordance with New Jersey state statutes governing access of private information from libraries, she said.

Police came back with a subpoena later that day. Reutty conducted the search and told police she could not find a book with that title.

So, police asked her to show them all the records of everyone who took out or renewed a book for the previous 10 days. Reutty asked for another subpoena because those records are computerized and not kept at the library.

On May 12, Reutty said, she complied with the second subpoena -- which required a special computer program by the Bergen County Cooperative Library System. Police found the information right away, which helped them to identify the suspect, according to Colaneri.

But borough officials say Reutty intentionally stonewalled the police investigation by putting the library first. They also charged that she did not follow procedure by contacting the borough's attorney when she received the subpoena. Instead, she called a lawyer from the state library association.

The whole episode is "shocking," Reutty said Wednesday. "I followed the law. And because I followed the law, at the end of the day, the policemen's case is going to hold strong. Nobody is going to sue the library and nobody is going to sue the municipality of Hasbrouck Heights because information was given out illegally."

On Tuesday, about 20 librarians from around the state attended a joint meeting of the Borough Council and the library Board of Trustees in a show of support for Reutty.

The group included the executive director of the New Jersey Library Association, who told borough officials that the organization would revise its rules governing subpoenas.

"I will ask the Attorney General's Office and the [state] Police Association to sit down with us and look at those regulations," said NJLA head Patricia Tumulty.

Reutty is the first vice president/president-elect of the librarians' organization.

Several residents spoke in Reutty's defense, saying she must have been confused about the borough's rules.

But Reutty dismissed that interpretation. "The main issue here is privacy of information, and all of this could have been handled by education," she said.

Reutty did the right thing, said Arthur Miller, her lawyer. "At no time did Michele Reutty say to any police officer or anybody else that she would not give the information if it was properly requested," Miller told the council. "She said you've got to get proper court authorization."

Borough labor lawyer Ellen Horn, who also represented the library trustees, said Reutty was "more interested in protecting" her library than helping the police.

"It was an absolute misjudgment of the seriousness of the matter," Horn said at Tuesday's meeting.

Reutty said the issue has grown to encompass a larger issue.

"I think it would have been so easy for me to just resign when all of this started happening," she said. "But it's not just me anymore. This is so that other librarians, when faced with a subpoena, will do the right thing."

E-mail: firschein@northjersey.com

6951562

[plan2succeed.org]

Having called the library director I learned,

1) She seems to be trying her best to do the right thing and I have no complaints regarding her actions,

2) She called an ACLU attorney to determine her course of action, and

3) If the Police and the Library Director are both working for the same boss, the town, why is there a need to protect patrons privacy since such information was being revealed to others working for the same boss, not to the public. The librarian agreed this was a valid issue.

If in answer to 3) one says, well, that's the law (NJS 18A:73-43.2), one has to ask:

3A) Why is the law written the way is is?

3B) Why is it interpreted the way it is?

3C) How did the law come into being in the first place -- the librarians themselves under ALA guidance, perhaps?

3D) If the law is supposedly intended to protect patron privacy, why is there a section carved out that lets the library itself violate this privacy in pursuance of its own interests, such as collecting library fees?

3E) Is the collection of library fees a more important public policy goal than the prevention and determination of criminal activity? (Do librarians have more power than the Police?)

3F) Why are libraries destroying the records police need to solve crimes and the FBI needs to prevent terrorism, while at the same time preventing access to the records they are destroying? More importantly, is this what the public wants or what the ALA/ACLU want?

3G) Why did the librarian turn to the New Jersey Library Association and the ACLU for advice and not the town's own attorney?

SafeLibraries.org - Are Children Safe in Public Libraries?

[Lx]

You got 7 days punk!

[NonValueAdded]

It is a shame that the librarian chose to seek her advice from the ACLU but a tiger is a tiger. Here is the statute:

18A:73-43.2. Confidentiality; exceptions

Library records which contain the names or other personally identifying details regarding the users of libraries are confidential and shall not be disclosed except in the following circumstances:

a. The records are necessary for the proper operation of the library;

b. Disclosure is requested by the user; or

c. Disclosure is required pursuant to a subpena [sic] issued by a court or court order.

L. 1985, c. 172, s. 2, eff. May 31, 1985.

18A:73-43.3. Rules, regulations The State Librarian shall adopt pursuant to section 18 of P.L. 1969, c. 158 (C. 18A:73-33) and the "Administrative Procedure Act," P.L. 1968, c. 410 (C. 52:14B-1 et seq.) rules and regulations necessary to effectuate the purposes of this act.

Sounds like the librarian was on pretty solid footing and barring any guidance from the State Librarian to the contrary, she just might have preserved the cops' case against the perp.

[hardworking]

In the meantime, had the young lady been abducted, raped, or murdered, would Ms. Lilly-Livered Librarian be held in any way responsible for failing to help? Interesting question.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Subpoenas are just another part of the restrictive fourth and fifth amendments that keep the police from having an easy job. It would be a lot easier for the police to arrest criminals if they didn't have to follow procedure.

[plan2succeed.org]

Yes, besides ruffling feathers, she appears to have followed the law to the tee, at least according to my reading of the newspaper report. My question is why is this law there in the first place, and are the issues I raise serious enough to reevaluate the law? Thanks for posting the law.

[conservativehusker]

It seems to me that asking for a supena is correct..as for who she called don't know nmuch about that..

what happens when the police want to know everyone who checked out Ann Colters books...who will protect us..??

[Doctor Stochastic]

Perhaps the law is there to keep nosy people from harassing those who check out books that said nosy people don't find appropriate. For example, sans law, a reporter or policeman or detective could find out who check out "Godless" and give more parking tickets or write editorials, or even use such information in a custody dispute.

[plan2succeed.org]

This is New Jersey. Recall Ann Coulter's book would have been banned by two elected NJ Democrats, and, by the way, no outcry from the ALA (American Library Association). So no, no one will get in trouble checking out Ann Coulter's book because it is being banned in New Jersey. No book? No subpoena.

[NonValueAdded]

Is that a tongue in your cheek or are you happy to ... nevermind.

Sounds like a panel question from earlier today. I propose the Jack Bauer law giving the police the option to use one round to the knee, preferably the left one.

[livius]

No, it just would have been all in a day's work for the ravingly liberal ALA, which was behind most of these idiotic laws.

My sister (a former librarian) had a friend who worked in a library in Jersey and quit because the entire computer section of the library had been turned over to sleazoids who watched porn all day. Even though there were kids there, the librarians could not get these guys out; furthermore, the sleazoids spent a lot of their time smirking at the librarians and calling them over to ask a question so that the librarians would have to see the porn displayed on the monitor. The ALA naturally defended the right of sleazoids to do whatever they wanted to in your local public library.

[plan2succeed.org]

Same comment as above re NJ and Ann Coulter.

[PeteB570]

It would be hard to find her books in the average library.

[plan2succeed.org]

Please have her contact us (SafeLibraries.org) so we can publicize her story, if she's interested. Only the ALA benefits by hiding the truth.

[hardworking]

Unbelievable. I used to love to go to the local library when I was a kid. Climbed on my bike and rode alone across town and enjoyed quiet time in the children's area. Today kids have to be driven because it isn't safe to let them go alone and apparently they can't even be left alone in the library. What have we come to?

[plan2succeed.org]

[livius]

I didn't know there was such an organization. I'll tell my sister - she still keeps in touch with some of her library buddies. Of course, the one who had the problems in Jersey has now found a nice job in a private foundation library, where she's very happy. Folks in the publics are really up against it and, like this woman, a lot leave, which is a pity when you think of how much most of us benefitted from the public libraries and their librarians.

[jimtorr]

Oh, sure, for a possible sexual predator the librarian is harrassed for not helping the police quickly enough. I wonder how Bergen would react if the FBI were conducting an urgent hunt for a terrorist who happens to be Muslim?

[livius]

So did I. But I stopped letting my kids go when the libraries started becoming homeless encampments and the librarians and the police were powerless (thanks to the ACLU) to get them out.

[plan2succeed.org]

You are correct. And we also try to stand up for the librarians victimized by or who don't support or want to support the radical agenda, as opposed to the proper agenda, of the ALA. See for example Good Librarians.