Vermont House rejects amendments to expand parental access age and import obscenity definition into library policy; S.220 passes

Representative Peterson (member from Clarendon) offered a two-part amendment to S.220, the bill updating public-library and school-library material-selection rules. Peterson proposed raising the age at which custodial parents may access a minor's library records from 12 to 14 and adding language requiring school library selection policies to exclude ‘‘materials defined as obscene pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 2804(b).’’

The House divided the amendment into its two instances for separate votes. In arguing for the age change, Peterson said the 14-year threshold is “a compromise between 16, which is what's in statute now, and 12,” and framed it as “a parental rights issue.” The House committee on government operations and military affairs had found the first instance unfavorable and urged members to retain the lower age, citing librarians’ recommendations and confidentiality practices.

Members who opposed the age change emphasized trust in librarians and the goal of aligning confidentiality rules with library practice. The member from Putney said, “I trust our librarians to make decisions in the best interest of our children,” and urged the House to reject the amendment and support the committee’s work. The House voted by voice; the nays prevailed and the body declined to amend the House proposal of amendment on the age question.

The second instance would have incorporated the criminal-law definition of obscenity (13 V.S.A. § 2804(b)) into school library selection policy, which proponents said would give school boards a tool to exclude material already defined by statute as harmful to minors. Opponents warned that pulling a criminal-law definition into school policy risks chilling access to literature and could be used to marginalize certain voices. The member from Saint Albans City told the House the committee had “not taken enough testimony” to understand ramifications for school libraries, while others warned the definition—written in 1973 and seldom amended—could sweep in works of literary or artistic merit.

Representative Peterson maintained the change was limited to obscene material as defined in statute and did not carry criminal penalties. Despite that clarification, the House rejected the second instance by voice vote. After the divided-question votes, the House proceeded to third reading; S.220 passed in concurrence with the House proposal of amendment by voice vote.

The action leaves in place the House’s underlying library-selection and retention framework as amended earlier; the defeated amendments (age change to 14 and statutory obscenity insertion) will not be part of the final text sent to the Senate. The House record shows the votes were voice calls and did not record numerical roll-call tallies.