By Joel Quevillon
During the course of a lawsuit, the Rampart Library District
changed its policy on its public meeting rooms.
In June the Liberty Counsel filed a lawsuit against the library
district over its policy which stated, “Meetings open to the public
that are religious or political in nature must provide a balanced
view and with the Board of Trustees approval.”
Matthew Staver, president and general counsel for the Liberty
Counsel, said the policy was a direct violation of the freedom of
speech. Staver said the Liberty Counsel discovered the policy when
the organization tried to use the room for a religious and
political discussion on marriage – one man, one woman.
Since the filing of the lawsuit, the policy has been changed to,
“In accordance with its mission statement, Rampart Library District
provides open access to information including ideas and the free
expression of different points of view. In keeping with these
principles, the Rampart Library District provides meeting room
space for members of the local community to present and exchange
information on a wide variety of subjects.
Although the meeting rooms are intended primarily for use in
support of library programs and services, they are also available
to non-profit organizations, community groups, and
for-profit/business organizations for the presentation and exchange
of information, regardless of their affiliations or
beliefs.”
The complete policy can be seen on-line at
www.rampartlibrarydistrict.com.
Sharon Quay, director of the library, said the original policy
was on a list with other policies to be reviewed by the library
district board before the lawsuit was filed. The policy had been
questioned before.
She said the library did not cave into the lawsuit.
“We did an intelligent evaluation of our policy, based on new
information, accommodating what most libraries in Colorado today
are doing,” Quay said. “We took a long hard look at what their
concern was. The library board of trustees looked at the policy and
felt it needed revision. To remove any question of us being in
violation of the first amendment, we took out terms that were
related to religion, balance or politics.”
She said the policy was originally in place to follow the
general philosophy of the library, to provide the views of more
than one side.
“In a public library we want people to have both sides of an
issue available to them. I think we realized that a meeting room is
very different than a collection, where you read the written word,
and it doesn’t bob or shift based on what a person says. In a
public meeting room we have no control over what people
say.”
Staver said the Liberty Counsel did not drop the lawsuit after
the library changed its policy to make sure the library would not
change it back.
“We have proposed a settlement to enter into an agreement to be
approved by the court that would ensure the library does not go
back and reenact this discriminatory policy,” he said.
The only thing now in question is who gets the bill.
Staver, who is asking the court to place the financial burden on
the library district, said the cost of this lawsuit is estimated to
be more than $20,000.
Quay said the possible financial risk of the lawsuit was not the
reason behind the policy change. The library district’s insurance
will cover the cost of the lawsuit. The insurance carrier, the
board and their legal counsel will determine whether or not to
fight the financial settlement.