Conservative group involved in Central Bucks library regulations some fear as defacto book ban

Copies of the Central Bucks School District’s administrative regulations for a library policy critics say opens the door to banning LGBTQ books have been reviewed and possibly edited by a statewide conservative group.

Metadata of a leaked copy of the regulations made multiple noteworthy changes to an earlier draft written by the district’s library coordinator, and the final draft appears to list an attorney for the Pennsylvania Family Institute as its author.

An email request for comment on the documents sent Thursday afternoon went unanswered, but the district sent an email to parents Friday as this news organization's deadline loomed confirming the regulations were reviewed by the institute's Independence Law Center.

"At the Board’s suggestion, the legal review for AR 109.2 was conducted by the Independence Law Firm. The district incurred no costs for the review as the firm works with school districts across the state on a pro-bono basis.

There has been a lot of speculation that Policy 109.2 would constitute a 'book ban' or was aiming to remove books on LBGTQ+ stories and genres. We are sharing this communication so that you can read the Policy as adopted and the AR as now finalized and see for yourself that neither of those things are true," the district email states.

School board member Karen Smith told this news organization Friday afternoon that she was unaware of any involvement with the institute. Smith and board members Tabitha Dell’Angelo and Dr. Mariam Mahmud have opposed the library policy in the past and pressed the board to address censorship concerns when the regulations were being drafted.

The Harrisburg-based nonprofit group focused on "religious liberty" and has supported legislation and policies that are often opposed by LGBTQ advocates, including suing the Boyertown Area School District in 2017 over its policy allowing students to use the restrooms and locker rooms of their gender identity instead of their gender assigned at birth.

"Our goal is for Pennsylvania to be a place where God is honored, religious freedom flourishes, families thrive, and life is cherished," the institute's website states.

The Central Bucks school board spent about six months hashing out the final draft of a new policy that officials said would prevent “sexually explicit” material from being purchased and allowed any resident in the district to challenge a book in its libraries.

The push for a new policy began just two months after an online group, Woke PA, started pushing to remove a list of books that mostly focused on LGBTQ issues and characters.

A wave of opposition followed the new policy through early 2022 as residents, students and groups like the Education Law Center and the ACLU of PA warned the district that policy 109.2 would lead to banning books.

Before the district could enact the policy, however, the administration had to finalize the procedures for how it would acquire new books and review challenges.

The leaked documents suggest the district’s library coordinator, Melissa Burger, may have used a copy of regulations used for an older version of Policy 109.2, which was cut from the district’s policies several years ago.

In Burger’s draft, the district would have to consider the literary merit of a book before deciding if it would be purchased, as would a challenge review committee as it also read the entire work before making a final determination.

Burger’s draft also stated that any challenged book would remain accessible until the review committee, made up of the superintendent’s designees, made a final determination.

The leaked final draft, which is identical to a copy of the administrative regulations provided by the district in response to this news organization's Right to Know Law request, removes any reference to “literary merit” and only requires the committee to “review” the book being challenged.

While the underlying metadata in the earlier draft lists Burger as its author, the leaked final draft that cut many of her suggestions lists its author as “jsamek”.

The resident middleman said this was not the source’s name and this news organization’s online search for “Samek” on the school’s website, meeting documents and even Bucks County property records could find no match for that name.

CBSD ties to PA Family Institute

While there didn’t seem to be any connection to anyone named Samek in Bucks County, the name did appear in an internet search for Samek and the Central Bucks School District.

PA Family Institute’s Senior Counsel Jeremy Samek appeared in a Christian news outlet’s story about the ACLU of PA’s federal discrimination complaint filed in October with the U.S. Department of Education on behalf of seven LGBTQ students.

Samek was interviewed on Nov. 8, according to LifeSiteNews, about six days after when the metadata says the leaked regulations were created.

Samek told the outlet that the district’s library policy was misinterpreted by the ACLU and the media and that the district was heralding a shift to “back to the middle” in schools.

“I think that what we’re seeing is a recorrecting (sic) of the pendulum where people, predominantly on the left, have sort of looked at public schools as a place where they can use a taxpayer-funded position in order to promote political or sociopolitical values, rather than trying to approach things neutrally and helping people to think,” he said.

The PA Family Institute did not return a request for comment from this news organization sent through the group’s media inquiries form on its website Friday.

That story also included comments from a Bucks County resident named Kenneth Stracuzzi, a member of a grassroots group called Hope for PA.

Stracuzzi has spoken at recent Central Bucks board meetings in support of multiple policies that have divided the community over the past few months at least.

In addition to being a member of Hope for PA, Stracuzzi is also listed on the institute’s website as its strategic advisor.

Stracuzzi’s ties to the institute were not included in the November article on LifeSiteNews.

The district has not returned this news organization’s request for comment on the leaked documents, any involvement with the institute or about changes made to the drafts as of press time Friday.

Why does it matter?

School board President Dana Hunter and Superintendent Abram Lucabaugh have pushed back against accusations that the library policy would cut books based on a select few passages of content, that the district would rely on its professionals to implement the policy and that Policy 109.2 would be transparent.

In the nearly six months since the district passed its policy in July, there was no update on the administrative regulations until this news organization asked for one earlier this month and was told they were already “complete and in force.”

The district also said it did not publicly post the administrative regulations, which is why this news organization had to file an open records request for the regulations.

The district told this news organization that library books would remain on the shelves while being challenged and that the review committee would consist of district staff like librarians and language arts professionals in the district.

While those responses may have reflected how Lucabaugh will implement the policy, the letter of the law — or administrative regulations in this case — give him or any future superintendent the ability to shelve challenged books and assign any person to the committee.

The deletion of “literary merit” raises the same concerns raised this summer by Smith, Dell’Angelo and Mahmud.

During discussion of the policy at a June school board meeting, board President Dana Hunter again pushed back on claims that the district would ban books under the policy and turned to district solicitor Jeffrey Garton for clarification.

Garton said the district had more leeway on what books it would allow in its libraries, but students had a constitutional right to “preclude the removal of books” if done in a way that violates the First Amendment.

“The other thing is that (Policy 109.2) also states, and correct me if I’m wrong, that you don’t ban a book based on one passage or two passages. It has to have no literary value before you can remove it with those sexual content,” Garton said.

There is no specific reference to “literary merit” in the policy itself, and the only consideration for the “merit” of a book appear in the initial challenge process.

The challenge process outlined in the policy says a formal challenge should “offer suggestions as to replacements that are of equal or better merit” and serve a similar educational purpose as the challenged work.

Sharon Ward, a senior policy advisor for the Education Law Center, said the regulations were lacking in key areas that the center already outlined in a letter chastising the district last summer."The school district has an obligation to create a safe, positive learning environment for all students, but especially LGBTQ students who are instead the targets of Central Bucks policy changes. The board has prioritized the voices of a small group of community members over the needs of its own students," Ward said Thursday in an email.

Ward was commenting specifically on the copy of the regulations provided by the school district and not the leaked drafts.

As far as the district relying on its professionals, the two leaked documents alone suggest otherwise.

Comparing the drafts

Entire sections of Burger’s draft have been cut in the current regulations, some of which assert authority to the librarians.

“Librarians have a professional and ethical responsibility to select, maintain, and support access to content on subjects by diverse authors and creators that meets - as closely as possible – the needs, interests, and abilities of all people the library serves,” a deleted paragraph for the “acquisition of materials” stated.

“The Central Bucks Library Department upholds the principles of intellectual freedom and does not practice censorship. The selection of library materials is predicated on the right of students to read and receive age-appropriate information,” a now removed section of “general library policies” adds.

Those general policies focus on maintaining a diverse set of materials that may “directly or indirectly” contribute to the “educational purposes of the school” but will “widen the boundaries of students’ experiences, enrich their lives, or help them fulfill their personal needs.”

“Patrons and their families are free to select or reject books and other materials for themselves but may not engage in censorship and restrict the intellectual freedom of others,” the guidelines state.

Under the updated regulations, the acquisition of materials is left to the language in Policy 109.2. The superintendent or the library supervisor can ultimately remove or keep a new book if it’s found to violate the policy’s broad rules for age appropriateness.

The two drafts then outline the “criteria for selection of materials,” sharing rules that materials should be accurate, contemporary, available in various formats or media and cost effective.

Three revised sections from the earlier draft made changes to the purpose, suitability and “pluralistic nature” of materials selected.

Library materials should, under the earlier draft, “provide a wide range of appeal, be accessible to students of varied abilities and meet the informational and interest needs of the student population.”

In the updated regulations, “library materials are designed to advance the pedagogical goals and for the interest, information, and enlightenment of the student population.”

The earlier draft suggests that suitability of the materials should be based on “reputable, unbiased, professional journals and reviews,” including sources like the School Library Journal, Booklist, Kirkus Reviews, and Horn Book.

The new draft defers to its parent policy for what is “age appropriate”, and a review of online sites for age appropriateness would “not be determined conclusive.”

Why are we trusting this source?

This news organization does not typically trust a completely anonymous source. While their names may not appear in published stories, editors and reporters confirm their identities and the validity of any documents before moving forward.

In this case, however, the only confirmation that the source worked at the district was the word of an intermediary.

The documents shared did appear to be legitimate, with Central Bucks’ letterhead and even using what appeared to be the same font and style as any other document on the district’s website.

The district was still believed to be developing the regulations when the leaks were shared the day before the district’s December policy meeting.

In order to confirm the documents were real, this news organization attempted to contact other sources in the district, but none would comment or provide any documents.

The only way to test whether the documents were legitimate would be to compare them with the final version once the regulations were finished.

This news organization read through the leaked version and the confirmed regulations this week, then the documents were uploaded to a website that compares the text of two documents for any similarities.

There was not a single word, punctuation mark or any other difference between the final version provided by the district on Jan. 18 and the alleged leaked draft provided last month.

As the district said it didn’t post its regulations online, there’s little explanation for how someone would have access to these documents unless they were employed by the district or close to someone who was.

The resident acting as the go-between with the source said Melissa Burger was not the person who provided the documents. Burger did not respond to this news organization’s multiple attempts to contact her over the past month.

This article originally appeared on Bucks County Courier Times: Central Bucks book challenge rules reviewed by outside conservative group