LifePac of SW Washington

Life Issues/Family Ethics Political Action Committee

of Southwest Washington

A Freedom of Information Act request was made on February 12, 2001 to the Timberland Regional Library System headquartered in Olympia, Washington for all documents related to library Internet access. The purpose of the request was to ascertain the extent and nature of Internet access complaints or incidents in one Washington library system, as perhaps representative of library systems in the state.

Though library policies differ in particulars, with few exceptions (notably the Tacoma Public Library), libraries in Washington have followed Internet access policies recommended by the American Library Association which advocates unrestricted and unfiltered access. ALA is also suing the Federal government to block implementation of the Children’s Internet Protection Act that requires libraries receiving Federal e-rate discounts for Internet service to use “technology measures” to protect children from exposure to pornography.

In particular we were curious to obtain objective data concerning illegal activities involving Internet pornography (such as child pornography), potential and realized dangers to children (including exposure to obscenity and harmful to minors material), and the extent to which children were being exposed deliberately and/or inadvertently. What follows is a summary of results.

Copies of actual incident reports and correspondence may be obtained by contacting Heidi Borton at heidbort@yahoo.com. The following results have been compiled by Kathryn Garrison. Thank you, Kathryn, for your tireless efforts. We also gratefully acknowledge the legal assistance of Al Wertjes and Mike Faris of Faris & Wertjes, Attorneys at Law of Olympia, Washington.

Note: All rights are reserved. Written permission is required in order to reproduce in any form any portion of the following document. Contact Heidi Borton at above email/phone number.

The following is a summary of the incidents and comments related to the accessing of pornography on Timberland Regional Library (TRL) Internet terminals. TRL consists of a 27-branch system in five counties of Washington State (Thurston, Lewis, Pacific, Grays Harbor and Mason). Headquarters is in Olympia, Washington. Incidents are from 1995 to March 2001. These reports include telephone conversations, handwritten notes from librarians and patron, library incident reports, and correspondence (letters and e-mail) from staff and patrons. For additional information on specific incidents, refer to the incident cited by the number given after the incident or comment.

One hundred and six incidents or comments were made from 1995 until March 2001. In 1995, only 3 incidents were reported with numbers growing steadily each year to a high of 35 in 1999 (Table 1). In 1995 TRL had Internet service with graphics capability at only eight library locations. By the year 2000, 180 computers were in use with full Internet capabilities. In October 2000 parents were sent letters asking them to specify the Internet access for their children. Only 3% responded, with the remaining 97% given the library's default access of "open access," i.e., no filtering.

Incidents included arrests of patrons for accessing child pornography and exposure of children to pornography. The total number of incidents by type in Table 2 is greater than the total number of incident reports in Table 1, because some reports included several incidents, or involved one or more categories. For example an incident report describing a child being accidentally exposed to another child's viewing of pornography would be placed in two categories: "Minors viewing or printing pornography" and "Minors inadvertently exposed to pornography."

In Timberland the most frequently reported problem was minors viewing or printing pornography. The second most frequently reported concern was children being inadvertently exposed to images on other patron's computers. Almost half (54) of the incidents involved children being exposed to pornography, either directly -- by seeking it out, or indirectly -- by being exposed to another user's computer (Table 2).

Twelve incidents were reported that involved patrons viewing others accessing child pornography or seeing child porn sites left on library computers or on printouts (Centralia, North Mason, Aberdeen, Elma, Tumwater, and Shelton). Two arrests (Centralia and Tumwater libraries) were made in connection with use of library computers to access this material. In most cases, police were not notified of child pornography activity.

Correspondence includes both comments supporting the library’s open access policies and those protesting children’s access to pornography in a tax-supported entity. In addition, in 2000, petitions were circulated favoring filtering and opposing the library’s policy, garnering 2,038 signatures. Petitions supporting the library position garnered 111 signatures.

Incident reports are presented chronologically by year starting with September 1995 and ending March 2001. If additional information is provided, it is referenced to correspondence summaries following the library incident reports. For example "No. 95-1" refers to correspondence Number 1 from 1995.

Note: Names of individuals filing complaints and comments have been deleted to protect their privacy and are indicated by parentheses. Names of library administrative staff, legal representatives and local elected officials have been left as they appear in these documents. Individual staff in libraries are usually indicated by first name only or their names have been deleted.

09/29/95 Tumwater Director Kruse reports to TRL board that there have been two complaints in the past week regarding graphic sexual images being displayed by minors on the Internet. (No. 95-1)

10/09/95 Tumwater A patron observes two middle school age boys and a 10 year old looking at a picture of a nude woman. She reports it to the librarian who tells her it is library policy to allow users to access what they want. Patron was distressed that her six year old was exposed to pornography that "unsupervised minors were accessing on computers paid for by taxpayer dollars and in plain view of everyone in the library." Patron urged an immediate change in policy.

12/11/95 Centralia Patron writes about teenagers viewing and printing photos of nude women from the Internet. "I highly object to the computer being used in this way and intend to write the Daily Chronicle about it because I'm tired of this nonsense going on."

03/29/96 Unknown Written on a library form called If I ran the library, I'd change:

"Computers being used by children to watch porn. This is outrageous! How about having half the computers be protected and half not and children may only use ones protected. Don't even want to come in here at times. I want to call police. How can state get away with this? – ( )”

04/09/96 Tumwater Patron and her daughter observe images of nude women on screen of terminals being used by two young boys. Patron also removes image of nude woman attached to screen of library catalog terminal. Patron makes statements to TRL Board.

5/25/96 Lacey Patron writes to urge library to remove access to pornography in keeping with their selection policy. She asks staff to not allow materials that are elsewhere banned to minors. (No. 96-5)

06/26/96 Elma Patron and two children are exposed to Internet pornography while waiting to check out books. (No. 96-8)

08/17/96 Lacey Adult patron observes a young boy about ten years of age printing pictures of naked women. The boy leaves the library without retrieving his documents. (No. 96-9)

09/16/96 Unknown Adult patron complains to library staff member, Patty, about pornography on the Internet visible to passers by. Registers a complaint with the police department.

09/27/96 Lacey Police officer expresses concern to library staff about children viewing pornography. (No. 96-11)

9/28/96 Unknown Patron note to library staff member, Patty: "The young man using the Internet is looking at porno pictures. Should this be allowed while young children are around?"

11/06/96 Olympia Mayor Bob Jacobs writes to TRL Director Kruse offering two suggestions: 1. require minors to have parental permission to use the Internet, and 2. Allow minors access to the Internet only at screens visible from a staffed desk to allow staff to monitor minor's use.

12/09/96 Elma Librarian receives phone call from patron about a child accessing x-rated or sexual sites on the Internet.

?/?/96 Unknown Handwritten note: "It is obvious that the Internet is being used for pornography viewing by the young boys. I would like to suggest moving the monitors close to the reference or check out counter where staff would be able to keep an eye on these kids. This would perhaps discourage the viewing of these activities. If this isn't possible maybe some of the screens could be moved to a far corner where young children (and their parents) aren't subjected to such viewing by simply walking by. I am sorry to say that these activities have made me reluctant to bring my children into this library."

02/13/97 Centralia Female patron, ( ), reports to librarian, ( ), that a man at the Internet station is printing child pornography. Another librarian, ( ), reports that she looked up the RCW concerning possession of child pornography since "we were unsure of those laws and gave them to ( )." She then checks the GO command on Netscape on male patron's computer after he leaves. Reports that website "Lolita Links" was accessed. Decides to check this web site from her home computer to see if it includes child pornography.

02/14/97 Centralia Library is given a search warrant for signup sheet for library Internet use and one 3.5" diskette containing bookmarks (defined as "web site addresses that have been saved by users and library staff."). Warrant also asks for a computer located inside the library. Reason for warrant "Possession of child pornography."

02/15/97 Centralia Patron observes another patron printing child pornography. Police later arrested Melvin Chessman, on parole for conviction of possession of child pornography in Thurston Co. in 1995. He would molest teenage boys who he would contact at the library. (No. 97-1)

02/15/97 Centralia Friend of ( ) calls to express her concern for her 10 year daughter who she frequently drops off at the library.

02/25/97 Olympia Male patron complains of people looking at inappropriate material on the Internet.

3/25/97 Tumwater Patron finds printout from Playboy.com website in men's room and turns it in to librarian.

6/20/97 Shelton Patron finds about 15 pages of pornographic pictures from various Internet websites attached to a library publication. Reports to librarians that finding this material upset him.

07/01/97 MC Police officer notes a teenage minor looking at pornography on library Internet computer. Informs library staff they were violating state law by allowing access to Internet porn by minors. Officer orders teenager to leave the library and not return for the day. (97-2).

07/16/97 Lacey Adult patron observes teenager and 10 year old boy viewing pornography on Internet. Expresses her concern to librarians who explain that TRL provides open access and that parents are to supervise what their children are viewing. Librarian does approach the boys and asks them to stop their loud laughing. Patron has further conversation with librarian on July 18 and says she still does not like taxpayer money going towards accessing pornography.

07/18/97 Lacey Adult patron observes young boy and friend printing off pages on bomb-making left on screen by previous user, another 10- year- old. Police officer reports this incident to the library staff and asks to see the sign up sheets so he can alert the parents of this boy. Librarian told him: "...our sign up sheets only had first names and that signup sheets were confidential--only available to the police department if a subpoena were presented to the library director."

11/05/97 Lacey Adult patron observes "young man" (possibly 16-20 years old) using the Internet. He had small pornographic photos in a photo folder and kept going back and forth between the folder and the Internet.

03/10/98 Shelton Patron phones library to say his wife has observed, three times in the past week, young kids about 16 years of age using the computers at Shelton to access pornography. He states "I know you have to work within the laws, but it is scary that we, the taxpayers are facilitating teenage boys doing this--something that may affect them for the rest of their lives."

03/11/98 Unknown Adult patron observes patron next to him viewing pornography. His main concern is that children could walk by and inadvertently view this material. Patron expresses amazement that public libraries would offer access to such material.

03/12/98 Olympia Female patron observes children and adults printing copies of "naked people having sex" off of the Internet. Suggests that children should have a signed parental permission slip to get on the Internet.

03/16/98 Unknown Male patron observes kids viewing porn and fills out a form: "If I ran the library, I'd change: The computer policy. It's annoying to be turned away from a chance on the computer so kids can look at naked pictures at 1:45 in the afternoon on 2 different machines. Shouldn't they be in school?"

03/17/98? Lacey Female adult patron observes young patrons viewing pornographic images on the Internet. After telling the librarian of her concerns, librarian recites TRL policy. A few moments later another woman reports seeing graphic images on an Internet screen while walking to the copy machine. She expresses her concern about letting her children move about the library without her. Later that evening, library staff receive a call from Lacey police about a report of young boys viewing pornography at the Lacey Library.

03/24/98 Olympia Adult patron observes a large volume of printouts of pornography coming out of the printer, and writes: "I am appalled that my tax dollars are being used to supply pornography to constituents. I am glad that I did not have one

of my sons with me while someone was printing 100's of pages of porn pics on the one printer available." He goes on to suggest that the library "Block Internet access to porn sites and block the printing of same. Many people who have to file through the smut to find their own legitimate printouts find this preposterous and contemptible, especially when it's our children."

04/17/98 North Mason Staff member reports that a patron complains about many sex sites on the task bar of the computer when he went to use it. Staff member closes all sites and reboots computer.

04/22/98 North Mason Male patron reports seeing young man and several younger boys ages 9-10 viewing pornography on Internet. Young man is then observed by patron retrieving a stack of printouts and go into the men's restroom where he is observed masturbating in stall with pornographic pictures spread all over the floor of the stall. Patron reports " My primary concern in reporting the incident in spite of Timberland's reluctance to censor personal behavior was the possibility that other children may have had an opportunity to use that restroom thereby creating a serious possibility of a crime against a child occurring in the facility." Police are not notified.

04/28/98 North Mason Male patron reports seeing a child pornography site left open by previous patron and wonders if this was legal.

05/27/98 North Mason Patron and child are exposed to porn site on screen left by previous user.

06/25/98 Tumwater Two female patrons report that young boys were viewing and printing "disturbing sexual Internet printouts." The son of one of the patrons, 7 years old was hanging around terminal where older boys were accessing and printing pornography. Patrons are concerned that young boys could be on the net looking at this material.

07/28/98 Tumwater Librarian recommends that TRL filter access on computers in the youth area. She writes: "Inadvertent viewing of potentially offensive graphics intended for adult viewing is a problem. TRL has minimized the problem by privacy screens, placement of screens, etc. But believe me the situation still exists." (No. 98-2)

7/29/98 Centralia In a correspondence from Judy Dupuis to Mike Wessells, librarian Dupuis writes: "We have 5 PC's in our reference area now heavily used by adults, teens, and children, many of whom are accessing pornography and some earning money by selling copies of what they print at the area schools." (No. 98-4)

10/07/98 Centralia Patron identifying herself as a psychologist knowledgeable about children, views "sexually explicit" images on another screen. Patron felt images were particularly harmful to children and could not understand why library allows children to access such images.

10/07/98 Centralia Preschool child clicking open different Netscape buttons left by previous patron, views sexually explicit images.

10/21/98 Centralia Centralia page finds about 25 copies of a "vulgar sentence" (probably printed on library laser printer) scattered around the library during closing. The next day a patron finds a web page for SexVillage.com attached to public bulletin board in foyer. Web page included explicit photo and verbiage: "The SexVillage FREE Members Entrance! Get the highest quality Hardcore Pictures on the Net, the Youngest Models, The Best Videos, and Plenty of other features, FOR FREE!!!" Pages are alerted to be "visually vigilant' when performing their duties.

10/28/98 Centralia Staff report minor patron attempting to break through codes on Josten computer to access Internet. This individual had earlier used a staff computer to access "sex world." In addition this patron and friends have been observed printing signs and messages on library computers and leaving the results by computers and on the video shelf. These individuals have also been observed putting hands into the slots on the printers to feel the heat and to jump around saying it is hot.

11/03/98 Aberdeen ( ), library staff member, reports seeing child pornography on 'locked' screen after previous user departs. She had been aware of complaints that this person left bad sites up for the next person to see. She asks the individual, Ed H., to please make sure he backed out of his sites before he was finished with his time. Offending patron agrees, but when next person tried to use the computer it wouldn't work and was locked on child porn site. Police are not notified.

11/03/98 Elma In a letter to the editor of the Daily World (Aberdeeen) a parent reports her son returned from the library with about 50 pages of pornography. Parent would like library to put blocks on this type of material.

12/04/98 Unknown Patron visiting the library with small children reports seeing pornography on another patron's screen. Thinks she may not come back.

12/07/98 Centralia Custodian finds the following items in men's room trashcan on three different nights: empty bottle of rum, empty beer can, bottom burned, sample size bottle of vodka, issue of smut magazine, and several pages of "extremely graphic (sexual) computer printouts." Police are notified by library staff and believe the beer can was used for methamphetamine.

01/05/99 Lacey Adult patron observes another patron viewing and printing out pornography. Loud argument between patrons ensues. Librarian intervenes and patrons break off discussion.

01/06/99 Lacey Same patron objects strongly to staff about allowing viewing of pornography in the library.

02/12/99 Tumwater Male patron has "full inadvertent view of a pornographic site on the computer." Recommends the installation of a 3' high privacy partition to alleviate parents' concerns about their children viewing unsuitable materials. "...I want this privacy wall built so others will NOT be subjected to such filth.

02/17/99 Unknown Patron reports that while her son was using the computer, the person next to him was viewing porn type pictures and made a few suggestive remarks to her son. She was concerned about the possibility of someone making advances.

03/10/99 Hoquiam Male patron and his children are exposed to pornography. He writes: "More and more as I visit the library I see children...sitting at the computers looking at very graphic pornography...I assure you that this is not the Playboy-type stuff my friends and I use to sneak a peek at in the drug store. The most recent example occurred last week as I was perusing the video section which is adjacent to the computers. I glanced over and saw a young teen viewing a very explicit image while a boy of about 8 or 9 years of age was happily looking over his shoulder. Anyone standing at the video shelf could clearly see the image, even with the screen shield in place. (My own kids walk right past those screens on the way to the children's books, which are also next to the computer! I no longer feel comfortable allowing them to walk about in the library unsupervised.)...In an age where stories of rape and molestation are in the news every day and easy access to hard-core pornography can only make things worse. If the children of today are freely exposed to the very explicit and abusive exploitation of women, found in abundance on the internet, what will the future be like for my daughter?"

03/19/99 Tumwater Patron phones the library to say her son had seen some naked women on the Internet website left open by another patron.

03/19/99 Centralia Patron reports her friend observed young boys ages 10-12 years old watching pornography on the computers. "Having read reports on pornography and the devastating crimes of rape, murder, and molestation perpetrated against women and children by those who look at and read pornography I cannot understand libraries allowing anyone to use library equipment for this sick and disgusting material. It is quite obvious our founding fathers never meant the First Amendment to include pornography...I have enjoyed libraries for many years and am saddened to see this turn of events.

03/22/99 Olympia A patron phones the library after hearing about a co-worker's son being inadvertently exposed to Internet pornography. Indicates she is going to start a letter writing campaign against the library providing pornography. She feels that it is not right that the library does not stop children from viewing, but a porn shop would. Also does not want to pay taxes to provide 'perverted entertainment.' Libraries should be a safe environment for children and people should be able to send their children to the library and know they will be safe.

03/22/99 Centralia Librarian reports that the most frequently reported problem is sexually explicit images left on the screen by the previous users and states: "It troubles me a lot that some of our most regular seekers of sexual images are teen and pre-teen boys -- but I don't believe that filtering is the answer." (No. 99-5)

03/23/99 North Mason Patron asks why there is no filter on children's terminal, she assumed there was. Would like the library to post signs saying "This computer has no filters" and would like the library to educate the public on their issues and policies. Her son was "sexually assaulted" by pornography left on the children's computer and by an adult on another computer looking at porn.

03/25/99 Tumwater Adult female says the library needs to keep the Internet but should put filters on it because of the 'garbage' on it. She also says she does not want any of her tax dollars going for smut. She says: "It's just not right. I bet even the librarians don't like having to see this."

03/25/99 Tumwater Patron relates incident that happened to her friend at Olympia Library: Friend had been at the library using an Internet station when four middle school aged boys were at the one next to her looking at pornography. Her friend told the boys to stop and they were abusive to her. When the friend went to a staff person for help, she was told they could not stop the boys from using the Internet and they could look at anything they chose. Both women were outraged and couldn't believe the library would support this.

03/26/99 Tumwater Adult patron is concerned about his taxes paying for pornography.

03/26/99 Tumwater Adult female patron reports being exposed to "nude women one of whom had her legs apart 'in all her glory.'"

03/26/99 Tumwater Adult female patron reports: "We've always had these kinds of places about sex but people saw it at the sex places, certainly not in a public library...If they can get rid of the pornography there [Tacoma] why can't this library?"

03/27/99 Unknown Patron completes "If I ran the library...I'd change: computer policy re: minors young children allowed to view porn. Phooey on 'it's the parents responsibility.' No other public place allows children to come into their establishment and view porn without it being a criminal offense. At the very least, allow them only access to one filtered computer -- their protection should outweigh protection of adults."

04/02/99 North Mason Child reports to librarian that while scrolling the "Locators Bar" he clicked on some porn and wanted the librarian to remove it. The librarians informs him she can't remove that, but would show him some other ways to access his e-mail account, open search engine, etc.

04/03/99 North Mason Librarian reports complaints from patrons about a recurring problem on the "children's computer." The problem "...involves the history cache and the quick access it give to whatever is in that file. We currently have a porn site in that file that you cannot get out of. You cannot X out nor does control f4 work or a right click and close. It is also in a loop where if you close one it goes immediately to another and then loops through a series of sites of like nature...Any child is one very quick inadvertent click away from viewing something he/she or a parent may view as inappropriate."

04/08/99 OP Granddaughters of patron are sent photos of genitalia from a guy they were chatting with on-line at the library. Grandmother writes: "...can something be done to protect those who use this wonderful thing (the internet) from those who would ruin it for everyone?"

04/15/99 Tumwater Vice President of Tumwater School District writes to TRL director about concerns related to youth accessing pornography via the Internet at TRL. He urges TRL to put into place safeguards for appropriate youth Internet access and use. (No. 99-12)

04/16/99 Unknown Patron urges library to find a compromise to restrict minor's access to pornography. (No. 99-13)

04/20/99 Elma Library staff reports finding computer document on library terminal containing child pornography. She prints documents which include a nude 12 year old and a five year old with a "man's penis in her mouth," then puts them in her desk She reports her actions to other library staff the next day. No mention is made if police are contacted. (No. 99-14)

04/20/99 Olympia Patron writes: "I do not want to see any pornography when I go to the library; surely I have just as much a right to avoid viewing this as others have to see it." (No. 99-15)

04/20/99 Lacey Patron writes: "I do not think it is asking too much of the Board to make it a goal of the TRL to not allow porn sites to be viewed in a library...There is no valid reason for this Board to facilitate and accommodate porn viewing. It is my hope that the Board does not turn the TRLS into a peep-show provider." (No. 99-16)

04/21/99 L, OL, TU Patron writes: "I would like to see filters on all patron computers or I would like to see the Timberland Libraries subscribe to an online service that filters obscene and pornographic materials. (No. 99-17).

04/22/99 Olympia Patron is refused access to a book entitled "Christmas on Jane Street" because is is too new for interlibrary loan and TRL had no plans to purchase it. She writes: "I have read in the Olympian over the past few years about your policy of providing Internet pornography to all your customers, including children. I have been a library patron for decades, and I really deplore your choosing pornography over a book which affirms good people and families. What can you possibly be thinking?"

04/29/99 Olympia Librarian reports that a patron complained that the previous patron had left many pornographic windows open on the internet machine behind him and that it took her five minutes to shut them all down. The patron that used the machine before her was a homeless patron. This patron had been spoken to on several occasions before by library staff and told he needed to shut down the windows on his machine before he leaves, but was "not at all receptive."

04/29/99 Salkum Library staff member writes regarding Internet complaints: "We have had one vocal complaint here at Salkum within the last two weeks. So we have been very fortunate."

04/29/99 Amanda Park Staff writes regarding Internet complaints: "...I have had two patrons verbally express a wish that Timberland could do something to prevent access to pornographic sites at the library."

05/5/99 SA Staff member documents patron complaint that patron and her husband could see pornography on the screen of another patron who was a minor. "The couple were both agitated, but seemed satisfied that TRL was listening to patron complaints."

06/30/99 Lacey Library staff reports that a patron deposited Internet printouts containing images that were "sexually suggestive" on the check-in counter. Patron reported finding them on the floor of the men's room. Noticing that the printouts had "drops of some kind of liquid on them," the staff member recommended that "in the future he should allow library staff to handle possibly biohazardous material such as this." Staff member then cleaned the counter and her hands with a "healthcare personnel antiseptic handrinse."

08/13/99 North Mason Patron reports seeing 'pictures of naked people' on computer screen when he went to use it. The librarian reports that "Apparently these pictures were on the screen and could have been viewed by any child in the children's area. This man did not want to make any kind of formal complaint. He obviously thought what he was subjected to was illegal and he wanted someone to know."

08/18/99 North Mason Patron at children's area Internet terminal speaks to librarian about search results brought up by "paintball.com" being pornographic.

08/27/99 North Mason Patron calls the library to say her son came home with pornographic printouts. She makes it clear that he is not to come in and do that again. She wants the library to back her up and deny him access to the Internet. Librarian explains that TRL has a policy of open access and that parents are responsible for their child's usage. Library staff encourage her to come in a learn about the filtered search engines that are available.

10/23/99 Elma Police officer asks library staff to notify him if they notice a particular individual using the Internet computers. Library staff refuse, citing Washington State law regarding patron confidentiality.

01/29/00 Elma Patron and teenage daughter are exposed to pornography on another patrons computer. Patron asks if there are city laws against this and says she is going to contact the city about this.

02/03/00 Tumwater Custodian finds and gives librarian a stack of computer printouts depicting child pornography. Librarian does not know what to do with them, but does notify other library staff. A police office comes to get the papers the next day. (No. 00-1)

02/16/00 Tenino Female patron is disturbed by four teenage boys who are looking at sexually explicit pictures of women and making lewd comments. She raised her voice to express her disapproval and asked [deleted] to 'do something about it!' Staff member tries to calm patron down and explains TRL policy and gives her the director's phone number.

03/10/00 Tumwater Female patron reports to staff that a man is looking at child pornography. She reports this information to the Tumwater police, as well.

03/13/00 Tumwater Police arrest a man looking at child pornography on an Internet access computer. (No. 00-2)

03/14/00 Shelton Patron notices a child pornography site left up on one of the computer screens. He reports it to library staff saying, "You have a felony there." Staff investigate and find that the porn site came up under the "No filter" log on and could not be eliminated, service center is notified. Police are not.

03/29/00 North Mason Student in a library Internet use class is exposed to pornography when another student in the class, a known "porn user," begins to surf porn on the hands-on portion of the class. Instructor is confused about how to handle the situation and chooses to ignore it. (No. 00-3)

04/10/00 Unknown Patron reports that friend of her 10 year-old daughter was caught with pornography she got from the Internet at the library. Daughter wants to come see it, too. Patron wants to know what type of filters are in place.

04/10/00 North Mason Handwritten note from library staff reports finding a copy of an "adult pornographic screen saver" that had been printed out and left by a patron

04/18/00 Lacey Two different patrons are exposed to printouts of pornography ("nude women with legs wide spread") on another patron's computer. Patrons had picked up printouts by mistake when retrieving their own printouts. A third patron and her 8-9 year old son are also aware of situation and walk away. Librarian asks offending patron to stop printing and he agrees.

06/28/00 Olympia Patrons call police after seeing porn left on screen and print- outs. Four to six patrons are involved.

07/05/00 Tumwater Patron reports seeing a young man viewing and printing off pictures of "naked men in homosexual positions." Library staff explain TRL policy and tell the patron that if he thought he saw something illegal (child porn) then the library could let the police know.

08/29/00 Centralia Female patron observes a young man using computer to access and print pornography. A hour later the woman returns with a police officer looking for the young man, who had left.

10/14/00 Olympia Patron with two young children observe another patron viewing possible child pornography. Library staff ask if he wants to call police. Patron says he will handle it himself and walks over to offending patron, argument ensues. Library staff calm the situation and patron departs, but does not call police. Incident report notes that other staff members and patrons had complained about this offending user's access of "very sexually explicit scenes" at other times.

10/20/00 Centralia Patron with four-year-old child and woman friend complains to staff of a patron viewing pornography on one of the unfiltered Internet computers. Patron is asked if it was child pornography, when told it was not, librarian explained TRL policy and the segregation of filtered and unfiltered access in the library and parental choice for children's access.

10/22/00 Centralia Patron and her children are exposed to pornographic materials being viewed by another user. Patron approaches library staff to inform them and ask them to stop him. The library staff member asks if it involved child porn, which it did not. Librarian reports "I said that material that she might consider to be pornographic, but did not involve children was not considered illegal and that I could not, according to library policy, ask him to stop viewing the material."

[Editor’s note: In addition to child pornography, legally defined obscenity is prosecutable. See Roth v. United States 354 U.S. 476 (1957); Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton 413 U.S. 49 (1973); Miller v. California 413 U,S. 15, 93 S. Ct. 2607 (1973); Reno v. ACLU 521 U.S. 844 (1997) Footnote 44. While a library exemption does exist in Washington, the legality of Internet access to obscenity in public libraries has not yet been examined by the higher courts. It is a dubious exercise for library staff to be rendering opinions on the legality of “pornography”.]

10/25/00 Tumwater Patron discovers "sexually explicit pictures" in a Word file. Library staff remove the file.

10/26/00 Lacey Patron and his two children using the children's area are exposed to pornography on a computer. Patron feels his kid's right to use the children's area without seeing pornography should be just as important as the rights of the person viewing the porn. Patron leaves the library mad and says he will contact his legislator.

12/1/00 Olympia Patron reports that a few days before, she had observed another patron viewing child pornography involving genital mutilation. She reported that at the time, she just want to 'flee,' and that she was afraid to tell the library staff because one of them had been rude to her. She was also afraid the man might go after her own daughter if he knew she had turned him in. She overheard the man saying he runs his business out of the library printing off these photos for free. Police are not notified.

02/02/01 North Mason Handwritten note about a minor child accessing child pornography.

02/27/01 Centralia Patron observes two young boys about 11 years old viewing pornography. Library staff asks if it was child porn, which it was not. Librarian explains that child pornography is illegal, unprotected speech.

03/16/01 Shelton Patron and her child are exposed to "an Internet site with horrible disgusting porn" as they entered the library. Patron felt that it was like walking into a porn shop. In addition she reports that an eight year-old girl was sitting right next to the computer.

03/16/01 Shelton Patron requests that library filter out all porn from the computer after seeing pornographic material left on the screen of another user's computer.

02/23/01 Shelton Patron asks that the printing of nudity be stopped because it is a waste of paper and ink. She/he sees lots of it being discarded.

*Correspondence for 1995 –1999 is inclusive; for the year 2000 we have included selected comments on both sides of the issue, due to the volume of letters and emails received by the library system in that year.

Beginning in 1995, Library Director Kruse was aware of the problems associated with unrestricted access to the Internet, and concerned about "accidental viewing" of pornography. Despite complaints from patrons, her suggestions to library staff were to make viewing MORE private by turning screens away from public view so that accidental viewing is minimized.

Ms. Kruse reports on two incidents at Tumwater where adults saw images on terminals used by minors. She reiterated to the board that the library policy (adopted by the board earlier) was that they do not restrict access and that they post information informing people of the policy. They treat Internet use as they do all other library material, that it is available to all patrons regardless of age.

"As a temporary measure, I have asked staff to move terminals where possible to allow as private a use as feasible, and especially to try to arrange them so that accidental viewing is minimized."

She stated that she is gathering information from other libraries and elsewhere on this issue and would like to discuss this subject at the next board meeting. She states: "It's not going to be an easy one to solve. At this time we have Internet in all libraries, but we have Netscape available only in the 8 largest. Pictures are available only where we have Netscape."

Staff reiterate their support of intellectual freedom and belief that parents are the ones to guide their child's reading/viewing habits, and therefore express their support for continuing open access to the Internet for minors.

Mr. Wessells summarizes staff discussion of parental permission for use of the Internet for under age 18. He is gratified at the agreement between the degreed library professionals and most of the professionals in their auxiliary fields. He affirms the library stance of open access: "We try to ensure that there need not be any information 'have-nots' in our society. To do this we respect the rights of all Americans, regardless of race, nationality, or age."

In addition, he states the role of parents in guiding their children's use of library materials: "We encourage parents to take an interest in and guide the reading and viewing of their children, but we do not act as the parent nor do we presume to know better than the parent what the child should read or view. Instead we make all materials accessible to everyone and allow all parents to direct their own children in whatever way they choose."

Tina Roose reiterates to Thelma Kruse and the board the opinion of open access for all and suggests that restricting access to Internet for children would be admitting that there is something harmful or inappropriate about this library material.

She states that "The primary mission of a public library in a free country is to provide a public forum for the free exchange of both constitutionally protected information and ideas on all subjects. A public library that avoids controversial materials also avoids its Mission. A public library is a governmental agency which serves as an information source and public forum for its diverse community, and thus it must protect the First Amendment rights of all its citizens. The Timberland Regional Library has endorsed FREE ACCESS TO LIBRARIES FOR MINORS."

She goes on to state that restricted access to minors for one medium will lead to other restrictions on their access, that the library selected access to the entire Internet, and that pornography is available in other library resourses.

Finally she reiterates library policy that all materials are available to all persons regardless of age and that the library does not make "value judgments about what may be sensitive material for any family." And "Parents... should instruct and guide their own children and/or accompany them to the Library as the parent deems necessary. Many different parents have widely different ideas of what constitutes sexually explicit or inappropriate material. Parents, not the Library, are responsible for deciding at what age their children are sufficiently mature to read or view or listen to sexually explicit material or any other type of material or to make their own decisions about these activities. If we single out one resource, the Internet, and label it 'requires parental permission for minors,' we are telling ALL parents that we think there may be something 'inappropriate or even harmful to minors' therein."

Ms. Strohl sends her endorsement of statements prepared by Tina Roose and Mike Wessells for the board's consideration. She believes that requiring parental signatures for children's access would be to put up a barrier to access for "innumerable middle-schoolers and teenagers." She believes that parents of these children could not possibly take the time to come into the library to sign a permission slip and that it would be "humiliating perhaps to high school students to have to be treated like an irresponsible person who 'needs permission.'"

She also stresses that requiring parental signatures would be difficult to implement and enforce, as there would always be ways around it. For example, groups of young adults 18 and over working on a PC with a friend who is younger and does require a parental signature. She reminds that the Board has already stated as a guideline that staff will not monitor access.

Picketers threaten Tumwater Library. Again Ms. Kruse acknowledges the problem with minors accessing Internet services at the library.

Ms. Kruse thanks the board for their support during the past week as they have dealt with the latest Internet challenges. She informs them that picketers may appear at the Tumwater Library, and that they have extra staff ready to assist in Tumwater if they are picketed.

She also informs the board that she has contacted Tumwater city staff to discuss library Internet policy and the high school officials to talk about "positive ways to deal with the kids who cut class and come to the library to hang out during the school day." She recognizes that, "Kids who come as a group and monopolize the Internet terminals both can be a behavior problem and keep other people from using the resources."

Patron letter in response to front page article in the Daily Olympian on Sunday, April 14, 1996. She urges the library to remove access to pornographic materials in keeping with their selection policy. She states: “Parental discernment, supervision, and training are essential for our children, but we as parents extend our trust to you not to allow materials that is elsewhere banned to minors."

She cites Lacey Municipal Code restricting adult businesses. "The suggested privatization of the Internet computers may protect unintentional viewers from seeing offensive material, but by allowing access to minors it becomes illegal. The regulations regarding X-rated viewing booths states, 'No persons under the age of eighteen years shall be allowed to occupy a viewing booth at any time. (It is also unlawful for)...the owner or manager to knowingly allow the above conduct."

Mr. Lawrence thanks ( ) for her letter and tells her the library director will reply to her letter on behalf of the board.

Library board president totally misinterprets patron's concerns. (compiler’s opinion)

Ms. Timm thanks ( ) for her "affirmation of Timberland Regional Library's intellectual freedom stance on the Internet regarding freedom to read and freedom to view as supporting first amendment rights." [She must have confused ( ) with someone else, although she goes on to thank her for the filtering information.]

Staff reports on exposure of patron and her two children to Internet pornography. Patron is concerned about "...kids being exposed to suggestive and/or vulgar 'chats' and sex-tinged photos...and tax-payer dollars being spent to provide this way for someone to 'get his jollies.'"

Staff member reports that she listened to patrons concerns, thanked her for sharing them, and would pass her concerns on to her supervisor. She also reiterated to the patron, TRL policy of open access, that they do not monitor use in any way, and that the Administration is concerned about patron privacy while using the Internet.

She mentions that the Elma's two Internet terminals are right near the Circ desk and that what's on their screens is very obvious to people as they walk into the library, while they wait to check out materials and as they enter meeting room. "It is very easy to be caught off guard and 'visually assaulted' by the images and comments on the Internet screens."

Patron ( ) relates his Internet experience from Lacey library on August 27, 1996. He observed a ten year old printing pages of images of naked women. ( ) turned printouts over to librarians and obtained a copy of their Internet policy. In his letter, he suggests a change in the policy that would "restrict[s] the use of library resources to minors for the purposes of accessing pornographic materials." He makes the point that the State of Washington does not permit the sale of these materials to minors and the library should abide by the same standards.. He also states "I do not want my important research delayed while youngsters are cruising the net in search of the kind of material they would be restricted from obtaining elsewhere. This is not a worthy use of library resources and I cannot support it."

He ends by saying "I also think that it is your best interest to deal with now before it gets blown out of proportion. I am sure that, sooner or later, some child's parent is going to become very upset when they learn that their son or daughter has been allowed to access this kind of material at a public library."

Ms. Strohl states library policies: librarians do not select Internet material, parents are responsible for their child's use of the Internet, the library is not 'selling' materials to minors, but rather is "fulfilling its unique role in society as a source of information from which to discriminate and choose," the library does not monitor what people use, see, or read in the library and that in fact "confidentiality and privacy are key guiding principles of library service."

When addressing ( )’s concerns about children viewing pornography being a tax supported activity, Ms. Strohl points out that the cost of filtering would require additional tax money and that software is not currently available that would work in a library setting. Such software slows down the performance of the PC and could screen out some information that could be valid and valuable in library research.

Finally, she states that all users are allowed one hour of Internet time. Also, she states she cannot change policy, that the board sets policy.

Police Commander tells library staff that Lacey city ordinances do not allow youth under 18 access to pornography in adult bookstores and that libraries should be held to this or a highter standard. Staff reiterate their policy of open access and the responsibility of parents to monitor their children.

Re: Lacey Police Commander, Ed Sorger's concerns about Internet access in the library for those under 18

In this memo, Ms. Strohl relates to the library director an incident involving a Lacey police officer. She tells how Commander Sorger phoned her because of community concerns about youth under 18 being able to access pornography on the Internet. According to Stohl, Sorger said, "There are city ordinances which don't allow youth under 18 access to pornography in adult bookstores and we should at least hold our public libraries to that or a higher standard." Commander Sorger then visited Ms. Strohl and brought her a copy of the Lacey city ordinance.

Commander Sorger did not have any formal complaints from citizens, but said he hears a lot of people expressing concern about this problem (schools, Lion's Club, etc.). He had also discussed it with the police chief, Bernie Main, and plans on talking with City Attorney, Ken Ahlf, and to the Tumwater police chief.

Ms. Strohl offered the library's view of open access and the aim of the library to help parents and children use the Internet wisely. They discussed blocking software and Ms. Strohl informed him of some of the drawbacks of it in a public library. She also told him of classes the library will be offering in November for parents and children. Commander Sorger was concerned about those parents who never supervise their children.

Ms. Stohl gave him three items: TRL Internet Policy, Child Safety on the Information Highway, and Law of the Net from Internet World January 1996.

When asked by Ms. Strohl what suggestions he might offer, Commander Sorger suggested that they could turn the screens around. When Ms. Strohl said they were having a meeting to consider this so that people would have more privacy and patrons walking by would not be exposed to offensive images, the Commander said, "No, that's not what I mean. I think you should turn the screens so they are very visible to the staff and people walking by so it would embarrass kids and they would not access these pornographic sites." He also suggested that youth under 18 should have to sign a statement that when using the Internet, they would not access any of the type of material described under "obscene materials" in the Lacey ordinance. If they did, they would no longer be able to use the Internet.

Director Kruse reminds the board that libraries are exempt from obscenity laws, despite what the police say. TRL attorney Craig Hanson advises staff to "quash" any police action at the library. He convinces staff that police behavior is "intimidating and inappropriate."

This document is Ms. Kruse's report to the board about the incident reported by Ms. Stohl in her September 27 letter [above]. Ms. Kruse informs the board that "a police officer, in plain clothes, came in on the weekend and complained to Mary Strohl that TRL was providing pornography to children through the Internet. He said that several people in the community had spoken to him about it. He had no formal complaint or names." She reports that Mary "handled the incident well, spoke about the nature of the Internet and the process the Board had gone through to establish policy."

Ms. Kruse reports that she called the TRL attorney, Craig Hanson. "He was concerned about the action of the police officer. It struck him [Hanson] as an act of intimidation to come into the library in this way." She says that it was unclear to them whether he had come in on his own or as a police officer. Mr. Hansen called the Lacey city attorney to discuss the incident. When Ms. Kruse contacted the police officer he made it clear to her that he had come to the library in his official capacity, that he did not want to get staff in trouble with the law, and that he was writing up the report and submitting it to the police chief.

Ms. Kruse then informs the board that she discussed this incident with Helen, Carolyn, and Amory and that she thinks the major reaction was agreement with the library attorney that the action of the police officer was "inappropriate and intimidating."

In her final statement, Ms. Kruse says, "Libraries are of course exempted from the laws which deal with providing pornographic or obscene material." Her concern is how to deal with the situation in a way which clarifies TRL's position to the city and hopefully brings some understanding to the city officials. "Bernie Main is fully aware of and supports the library's position on intellectual freedom. Others on the city staff do not share this philosophy. We have decided that the best approach is to try to work informally to inform the city manager about our policy. Mary is providing information through Bernie, and perhaps will go with her to talk to the city manager."

Mayor Jacobs, after meeting with elected officials and hearing concerns from parents, offers two suggestions for handling access to pornography by juveniles:

1. Require that juveniles produce a note from their parents permitting them to use the Internet, and,

2. Allow juveniles to access the Internet only at screens visible from a staffed desk, which would allow existing staff to monitor such use and intervene as necessary.

Library staff are unresponsive to patrons concern about accessing child pornography and admit their ignorance of child pornography laws. Police learn about a child pornography library incident from a radio talk show. Library attorney,Craig Hanson, admits he is not conversant with child pornography laws and compares this child porn incident to the Lacey police incident in September 27, 1996, even though in this case a particular individual was seen printing child pornography in the library. Attorney admits he is not familiar with child pornography laws and will try and "quash" any police action by talking with Centralia city staff.

Correspondence from Corene Jones-Litter to Thelma Kruse (cc: Mike Wessells and Tina Roose):

Four page memo listing the sequence of events relating to child pornography and library Internet.

· Thursday, February 13 -- A patron, ( ), complains to Corene about another patron printing child pornography off the Internet. ( ) asks Corene if it is illegal to do so. Corene replies "I told her I wasn't sure since I'm not an attorney." ( ) asks Corene to talk to patron who refuses saying "...I indicated I would not since I would be violating his private use of the Internet." ( ) was upset that Corene would defend this person's privacy in this case and threatened to call talk shows and take steps to see that libraries are required to block child pornography. According to Corene, ( ) was "livid and was shaking, she was so angry." But "[ ] remained respectful to me in spite of being upset throughout the discussion." She left with contact information for library administration. Corene then entered the library area and recognized the patron using the Internet as a regular library patron, but did not know his name.

Corene studies the RCW dealing with child pornography, but notes that it does not say anything about printing pictures off the Internet. She then calls the Service Center to let them know of the incident. In her discussion with Tina Roose she reports: "We discussed that it is illegal to produce and sell child pornography. I knew from another case...that it is illegal to possess child pornography. We did not know if any library exemptions existed for this case. We did not know if a library patron, in the privacy of using the Internet, is committing a crime if they print Child Pornography. She advised that I call Craig Hanson Friday morning and let him know what happened and ask him these questions."

· February14 -- Officer Fitzgerald tells Corene that he had heard from a KELA radio show that someone was printing child pornography at the library. He tells Corene that this is against "all kinds of laws (state, federal, etc.)" and he asks for sign up sheets for the Internet. Corene refuses and tells him a court order would be necessary. She tries unsuccessfully to reach Mike Wessells. She calls Craig Hanson to ask for advice about releasing the signup logs. Hanson compares this incident to an earlier complaint by a police officer in Lacey. [See incident of September 27, 1996]. He further admits he is not completely conversant on the child pornography laws. Mike returns her call and a 'three way conversation occurs.' Craig's inclination was "to try to quash the actions of the police. He had been successful in Lacey by talking to the city attorney and city manager and would try the same in Centralia." Corene calls Officer Fitzgerald to inform him that Craig will call the Centralia's City Attorney. Corene goes home early, not feeling well.

· Later, library staff are told by Detective Fitzgerald they are getting a search warrant and asked that the Internet not be used. An officer stays to see that the computer is not used. Corene returns to the library. Another three way conversation between her, Wessells, and Hanson occurs. Police officer and their computer specialist and a "probation officer for the person living across the street arrive with search warrant." Corene is served. Police finish and leave and staff go home.Corene reports "...the police were very professional in their manner yet did not push us around. They treated us with respect and were respectful of our policies. We did not at any time feel threatened by their actions."

· February 15 -- Detective Fitzgerald and a coworker, both in plain clothes, observe the same patron pointed out by ( ) using the Internet. Police follow patron out of library and talk with him.

· February 19 -- Corene meets with Craig Nelson, Centralia City Manager, and Police Chief, Tony Breckle. Mr. Nelson asked about filtering software. Corene tells him staff had researched software about a year ago and weren't impressed. Police chief tells Corene the detectives found enough in the person's home to prosecute him.

· February 21 -- Chronicle reporter calls Corene at home to tell her the patron was arrested for printing child pornography off the Internet. Corene reiterates TRL policies to the reporter: "I stressed throughout the conversation, the person's right to privacy when searching the Internet, that we do not monitor what patrons are viewing, and that parents need to guide children in their use of the Internet. He wanted to know how the staff felt about this and I couldn't give him a good answer. He also asked if we felt responsible for the arrest. I told him that I didn't feel we were responsible but what was found at the library was a part of the package which led to the arrest."

· NOTE: According to Corene's memo, the person arrested was identified to the library staff at the end of January, in a memo from the Detective Division. He is Melvin Chessman, convicted of possession of child pornography in Thurston County in 1995 and was on parole at the time of the Centralia incidient. Police were aware he was living across the street from the library. The police contacted him once, he took exception and went to the city manager threatening to sue for harassment. The Centralia police talked to the Olympia police and found out that he would molest teenage boys who he would contact at the library or on the street. .

Corene states, "The city manager asked if we happen to see him approaching someone under 18, we could call a detective during business hours or 911 after. He does not expect us to supervise him in any way. Our staff are concerned that many parents leave children at the library without knowing exactly how public the public library has become."

Another police officer tells staff that it is illegal for minors to access pornography. TRL responds by telling staff to do what officers instruct them to do, but not to turn over any records or give them any information.

Mr. Wessells relates incident at MC where a police officer upon seeing a minor accessing pornography, asked him to leave the library. Police office informed the library staff that they were violating state law by allowing access to the Internet pornography by minors. The officer then instructed the librarians not to allow the teenager to enter the library for the rest of the day. Acting Police Chief also spoke with library staff reiterating the officers concerns.

Mr. Wessells directed the librarian that "...if law enforcement officers acting in their official capacities directed her to take certain actions regarding specific individuals (e.g. don't allow this individual in the building for this period of time), she was to comply, as long as it did not involve handing over any records or information. If she received a request that involved a blanket contravention of established TRL policy (e.g. don't let anyone under 18 use this terminal), she was to refer it directly to me...I consulted with Craig Hanson, who confirmed that this was his advice as well, since any disturbance of patrons' constitutional rights must be at the hands of law enforcement, not of library staff."

Mr. Wessells concluded by saying "I spoke with Acting Chief Crumb, who retold essentially the same facts as above, and indicated that the mayor was concerned regarding the city's liability in apparently condoning pornography available via Internet to juveniles. He said the City Attorney was preparing some kind of action, he was not certain what yet."

In these sweeping statements, the director gives her justification for minors as well as adult to access ANY material, even of an illegal nature, in the name of intellectual freedom. She makes statements about not censoring library materials, despite the fact that public libraries have never provided x-rated videos or magazines. Her goal in talking to upset patrons is to make sure that they do not "take the matter further."

Director Kruse sums up her feelings about intellectual freedom and libraries: "When you are called upon to defend library policies on intellectual freedom, having a clear understanding of the role of the public library in our society is essential. I have personally done so much soul searching on this issue that I have reconciled my own personal beliefs and values with the need to protect the right of everyone to access information without restrictions." She then states her belief about the role of the public library: "...in public libraries, we also were fighting to protect our constitutional rights. Public libraries are agencies of government. If we restrict information, we are censoring. Public libraries reflect our society; they do not determine its course. We try to provide information without imposing personal values."

She goes on to advise staff and board members how to address patrons who are concerned about open access to the Internet: "...I try to work in as early as possible the good and valuable aspects of Internet and the creative and helpful things we are doing to promote its positive values....we make it clear to everyone that what people access in a library is their own responsibility. Guiding their own children is the responsibility of parents...In conversations of this sort, I have no illusion that I have won people over to my point of view. What I hope for is mutual understanding and respect. I hope that the patron feels that it isn't necessary to take the matter further."

E-mail discussion about filtering in the children's areas elicited these responses from library staff. Some staff favor filtering in children's areas. Others are concerned about the ramifications of filtering ANY terminals, because this gives the message that some material now readily available in the library is not suitable for minors. Most are aware of the problems caused by pornography viewing in their libraries:

Ms. Nash recommends that TRL filter access on computers in the youth services area. "My primary reason for wanting to filter access in the youth area stems from alot of experience with inadvertent viewing issues. I have discussed these issues with many patrons and staff and reporters and officials. Inadvertent viewing of potentialy offensive graphics intended for adult viewing is a problem. TRL has minimized the problem by privacy screens, placement of screens, etc. But believe me the situation still exists."

However, she is quick to reiterate that patrons must be informed that all patrons have freedom of choice about which computers to use regardless of age, and "Filtering for the youth areas makes sense only as long as ALL other machines are set up the way they are now with user choice."

( ) is "uncomfortable with providing ANY permanently filtered PCs because of the assumptions of safety and relaxed parental responsibility this can create." She agrees that staff would need to be trained to inform patrons that ALL patrons have freedom of choice about what resources they use. She also feels that by limiting filtering to children's areas the library is giving the message that some material is not suitable to children and that the library should not be giving this message in any form.. Filtering in childrens areas, even if children are still allowed to use PC in the other areas, may also be a barrier to access as children could be intimidated by using terminals in "adult territory."

Yet, ( ) is keenly aware of the problems associated with open access: "I recognize the problems of inadvertent viewing of startling and offensive graphics," but still feels that user choice is the most equitable answer.

"We have 5 PC's in our reference area now heavily used by adults, teens, and children, many of whom are accessing pornography and some earning money by selling copies of what they print at the area schools. We do provide full access to all ages. I believe that parents have the right to not have to view these materials and to send their children to the library's children's room without having in their face pornography (and I am not just talking nude pictures here). Many of our children come in with other chilrren and not with parents. Let's not deny the rights of those who do not want to view. Walking around in the children's room with averted eyes could be dangerous."

Recommends that every PC have the choice of filtered or not. Rural libraries with space or resource restraints may not be able to have a filtered terminal. This gives rural patrons the message that they may have to go to another library to have access to a "safe" PC.

He is opposed to filters but recommends that since it's the "pictures" that everyone is concerned about, "TURN THEM OFF."

Ms. Clarkston's intent is not to restrict access to teens, but feels kids had a hard time getting on the 'adult machines' and was thinking to offer them a space of their own in the children's room, or at least first choice. She does not favor filtering but would like to come up with a way to spare folks from inadvertent viewing of " blatant pornographic images."

Staff ask Tacoma Public Library for information on their filtering system and receive this response.

Mr. Biek reports on TPL use of CyberPatrol. He states that CyberPatrol flags sites in two categories -- full nudity and sexual activity. Only text is allowed to be viewed on flagged sites. He reports: "It's rare that we have users report that sites are incorrectly flagged, and rare equals a couple of reports per month." Patrons are satisfied with being able to receive text from a flagged site. If a site is incorrectly flagged, library staff can bring up the site, offer to print it or download the page for the person. Then the system manager is notified and the url is removed from the flagged list, which usually takes one day.

"It's been a plus for us so far, both in terms of community and political support, the newspaper has editorialized favorably, and it's helped us keep the focus of internet access at the library on library purposes. In addition, to obscene materials, we also don't allow use of the library terminals for personal email, chats, or online games."

"It's 2/3/99, someone using a computer in your library is in a chat room being terribly rude. This person is using a computer with the ID timber20. Please help if you can. It is now 19:50 in Denver, Co.

Ms Anderson reports that a young woman who attended the TRL Board meeting contacted the Olympia City Council secretary and asked that her concerns about pornography on the library computers be related to the City Council.

TRL attempts"damage control." Again, staff openly support the public’s right to view pornography in the library, yet they need justification for allowing patrons to view, despite public outcry against it.

This appeal to library staff is to obtain input on the subject of Interent filtering and the increasing problems of pornography. This is in response to a young mother and her child who made an emotional plea to the TRL board at their February meeting after she had encountered offensive pictures on an Internet terminal at Olympia Library. Staff are asked to report to Mike Wessells "stories from the trenches about similar problems and the staff's opinions, observations, and any ideas for improving this potentially explosive situation....Time is of the essence here and your thoughts need to make it to the IF [Intellectual Freedom] Committee."

"With the media fanned frenzy that our society is hearing, our Board may get a distorted view that 'every' user is looking at pornographic sites. Our patrons have the right to do this and I respect that right but we know that not all patrons are using our computers in that way."

The only documented written response to this appeal is from Librarian Burns, see March 22 letter. She is concerned about inadvertent viewing, yet wants to protect the rights of patrons to access pornography. Still she can't help mentioning that she is troubled by the fact that most of their regular seekers of sexual images are teen and preteen boys.

Correspondence from( ), Chair, Citizens for Responsible Government to TRL Board:

( ) writes that while Ms. Kruse said in a KING-5 interview that the library is prohibited by law from exercising any control over what a library patron accesses over the Internet, it has not stopped Tacoma Public Library from exercising limited controls. He indicates to the board that "It seems to be a lack of interest in doing anything, rather than any legal constraints, that is allowing this porn/Internet problem to continue."

"In Centralia, the most frequent complaints that I hear stem from sexually explicit images that have been left on the screen after a patron has finished using the computer. Sometimes these images are full-size; more often however, the window has been minimized. In cases where the window has been minimized, we can usually expect that 5 or 6 minimized windows will appear at the bottom of the screen. Past experience has taught us that when there are a lot of minimized windows, it is usually wisest to go directly to the "Start" button and implement the "Shut down" process. We learned this lesson the awkward way -- and got many more eyes full of 'extremely' explicit images than we wanted..." She asks for some type of mechanism for automatically clearing the screen after each patron, believing that this would help protect the next viewer while still allowing pornography to be viewed. That said, she concludes by saying: "It troubles me a lot that some of our most regular seekers of sexual images are teen and pre-teen boys -- but I don't believe that filtering is the answer."

Further input from Tacoma Public Library points out some problems with using filtering software, but overall reports patron satisfaction with their solution.

Mr. Biek answers some questions about how Cyber Patrol works. He admits that new sites may 'bypass' the filtering software, if it is not updated regularly by the software maker. When asked is CyberPatrol is still meeting their needs he responds: "We continue to get much more praise than complaint about our policy. The software continues to meet our needs, and we've added a refinement to our browser software (Webfoot) to make it easier for users to question the library about whether a particular site should be flagged...The new feature is that this question from the user can be sent to library staff by email, anonymous or signed, right at that point." Flagged sites are still offered as text-only copies of the site.

A patron is concerned about very young, unattended children in the Elma Library.

This patron writes to suggest a code of conduct that would state that children under the age of seven cannot be left in the library without an adult and that children in the play area cannot be left alone. She writes: "I have noticed that patrons who use the Elma Library often do not watch their pre-school children. Recently, a small child was caught by the library staff as she attempted to climb out a window...This is not the first time a pre-school child has been found wandering around headed for the street or parking lot. This is a low income community with many young and inexperienced parents."

"( ), (a CE Board member) did tell me that her neighbor is very concerned about the possibility that people are viewing 'pornography' via the library's Internet computers -- and that the neighbor wanted to write to someone to tell them how she felt...."

"you guys are bitch ass mother fuckers for blocking internet access from the reference computers I am very pst off at you guys. I think people should have internet access off of the reference computers and its pure bullshit for blocking it. Now that was my peice of mind I hope you take it and shove it up your fucking ASS!"

Ms. Liebman reports the actions of a "very angry...irrational" patron who berates a colleague for requesting that the patron sign up for computer time.

Handwritten note attached to incident above states: "In order to avoid problems, I would like to suggest that we (reference staff) accompany any kids using internet to the computer at the time of their signup - to assure nothing 'unsavory' is left on the screen or minimized. We can restart for them."

Bob Barcliff, Vice President of Tumwater School District writes to Director Kruse about 'significant concerns raised regarding youth and public access to pornographic materials via the Internet at the Timberland Public Libraries." He writes that libraries must be safe and accessible for young people and families and reminds the director that the school district made a financial contribution to the TRL Fund. He recommends that "...the Timberland Regional Library System research and put into place appropriate technology and procedural safeguards regarding appropriate youth InterNet access and use. District staff are available as resources to help the library in terms of how to develop these safeguards."

Handwritten note about phone conversation with a patron regarding "Internet thing" states: "I hope that they can find some compromise to restrict minors access to pornographic stuff. I think there is a common community definition of pornography."

Patty reports to Corene and Jinny that she finds a computer with Microsoft Word document containing child pornography. "The first I saw depicted what I thought to be about a 12-year old girl who was completely naked. At this point I asked [name deleted] to print the document. The document contained numerous pornographic images. I stood by the printer and grabbed each one as it came out so that no patrons would view them. I saw in one of these images something even more startling than the previous picture --that of a child no older than five with a man's penis in her mouth...At this point, I stuck the pictures in my desk. I reported the incident to Jinny this morning at 8:30 a.m. I also handed over the pictures in an envelope to her. I spoke with Corene shortly before 9:00 a.m. regarding the incident

( ) writes that TRL should protect children and the general public from viewing pornography while at Timberland libraries. "Filtering the internet computer stations seems to me the safest method to do this." She cites several examples where pornography has been shown to be a contributory cause for violent, criminal actions. She writes: "Arguing that obscenity laws are vague, and that having complete and open access to the Internet is the correct policy, is unsafe. Clearly snuff pictures, sadomasichisms, and other forms of the bizarre are 'obscene' by general community standards...Short of an outright ban, I would like to argue that free access internet computer terminals be available to closed room, over 18, access. I do not want to see any pornography when I go to the library; surely I have just as much a right to avoid viewing this as others have to see it."

( )’s board-directed comments include reminding the board of their 1990 Book Selection Policy which states: "A policy cannot replace the judgment of librarians, but stating goals and indicating boundaries will assist them in choosing from a vast array of available materials." He then asks the board to make it a goal of TRL to not allow porn sites to be viewed in the library and to put porn sites outside the boundaries of what is appropriate to be viewed in a library. To illustrate the type of material he is refering to, he lists a site description from the website www.dicked.com which reads in part: "sex, anal, hardcore, blowjob, cum, suck, fuck..." and over forty other keywords. He concludes by asking the TRL to adopt Tacoma Public Library's Internet policy which does not allow the display of graphic images depicting full nudity and sexual acts which are portrayed exclusively for sensational or pornographic purposes. "There is no valid reason for this Board to facilitate and accommodate porn viewing. It is my hope that the Board does not turn the TRLS into a peep-show provider."

After attending the April 20 Board meeting, ( ) sends the board her comments on the meeting. "I was disappointed in many of the Library Board's either lack of response, ignoring or misinterpreting what was presented by at least half of the audience...There is no legal protection for much of what is on the Internet. Child pornography is not protected by law. I have heard of 'snuff' sites where people actually being tortured and killed can be viewed. I do not want my taxes going to our public libraries for anyone to view this kind of material...Don't you think you have some responsibility as a government entity to protect children and society?...We are asking that pornographic, obscene visual images be unavailable for viewing at our Timberland Libraries."

Mr. Wessells gives his summary of the April 20 board meeting. He reports that Ms. Kruse, himself and TRL attorney Craig Hanson make opening remarks to the board concerning current policy, constitutional framework, and legal issues involved.

About 70 members of the public and staff attended and there was over 90 minutes of testimony. He reports that the crowd was divided fairly equally between those who wanted open access and those who wanted to restrict access to pornography. The outcome of the meeting, according to Mr. Wessells was that the board directed Ms. Kruse to prepare a plan that would put some fully filtered terminals in at least some libraries. The number and location would be left up to staff to determine. "My conclusion is that open access will remain in all buildings, but that every patron will have the option to either use the current choice of filtered search engines or to go to whichever libraries have fully filtered terminals and use them there, if they do not desire full access."

Description of Incident: "On 2-2-00 at about 9:30 a.m. the [deleted] custodian came to my office and said 'I found these in the men's room.' He handed a 1-2" stack of about 4" x 4' papers to me. They were printouts from a computer that were originally 8 1/2 x 11 that had been torn in 4 parts. The photos on them depicted what were to my eye minor children in provocative poses. On 2-3-00 at about 3 p.m. I reported via phone to [deleted], RLM, that I had them and didn't know what to do with them. At about 4:30 [deleted] Detective Lieutenant [deleted] Police Dept called and asked if I knew where they are and I told him I had them. He came to the library. I gave the papers to him. He said, 'Next time you see anything like this you need to call us immediately,' and he gave his business card to me. I phoned [deleted] and reported what had taken place."

Correspondence from [deleted] to Art Blauvelt, Doug Mah, Peggy Meyer, [deleted], Thelma Kruse, and Bill Lawrence:

"Today 3/13/00 Tumwater plain clothes police officers arrested a man who was looking at what they called child pornography on a 15 minute no sign up Internet access computer. After quickly and quietly cuffing and whisking the arrested man out of the library, the police taped off all computers until a computer forensics expert from the Washington State Patrol arrived. When he arrived, he talked by phone to [deleted] and me to ask about our computers and to tell us he was taking the computer with its hard drive to download the contents for evidence. He said they would return the computer in about two weeks. We said fine. The Tumwater police took the computer...I have since talked to Craig Hanson who said the less we say about the incident the better and to defer questions to law enforcement.

Library instructor in a Internet use class does not know how to handle a student accessing pornography during class. Even when another student objects...

A staff member from North Mason relates the following incident: "The porn incident I referred to on Thursday was in my class. A regular patron who I know is a porn user was in my class. Fine. The problem was that when we went out on the pc's for the hands-on time he immediately accessed very graphic porn sites -- much to the irritation of another student who spoke to me afterwards. The question is, can I (or should I have) regulated what the students were doing WITHIN the parameters of the class? I ignored what he was doing and concentrated on the other students. I let all students choose what subject they want to investigate on the Internet. SO, given that, this guy could choose pornography as his topic if he wanted to no matter what other students may think about it?" A handwritten note dated 4-13-00 refers to speaking with [deleted] about this -- "he wants us to make a statement in class about not accessing offensive sites in class.

Patron expresses her support for library policies: "I strongly support the library and do not believe the library staff should be responsible for policing or censoring the Web."

Ms. Kruse thanks ( ) for his call to express his support of TRL board policy of Internet use. "Internet is a tremendously important resource and the Board spent many hours both in regular meetings and in public work sessions discussing how to handle use of it in the library. The Board has always upheld the principles of intellectual freedom and open access and has continued to support these principles in the use of Internet."

A patron calls the library to make a positive statement of support. She says she has a family and that she was happy that the library was not going to limit access to the Internet. She knew that it would be impossible to monitor people's use and did not agree with the negative comments in the Chronicle. She stressed that she did not care how the library discovered that the man was printing child pornography in the library, but she thought it was a good thing the library has the Internet because otherwise he might never have been caught.

Suggestion box entry at Tumwater: "Do not censor Internet use. PS I've never used the lib. Internet service but don't want some bleeding puritan or anybody else for that matter to control it! ( )"

"Parents should watch what their [kids] see on the internet. It should not be up to the library to control what children see on the internet. The library should be a place for free exchange of ideas. Without control by no one but the parents. Please do not allow peoples to try and have somebody else control what their children see or is exposed to."

"We believe the Constitution should be inviolate. This means that nothing should be censored in any way. The Timberland Library system has a moral directive to uphold the constitution and keep even the internet available to all people as it is, not censored in any way. If information is not complete and available to all people at any time our country is less free. We do not, and can not condone any violation of the constitution. Keep censorship where it belongs, like in Iran, Russia, China and all other countries where the people are not free!"

"I should like, however, to express my approval and appreciation of the current policy of the TRL Library Board which allows library users, individually, to determine the degree of censorship which each prefers for him/her self or his/her respective children. I firmly believe that final choices of this nature are the responsibility of the child's parent or guardian. That you have provided an array of filters is testimony to having thought through this issue carefully and it is my hope that the present policy can remain intact."

Mostly illegible, but concludes by saying: "I support Timberland's policy and First Amendment [indecipherable] for the library."

" I don't want to take up much time. I'm opposed to putting anything other than voluntary filters in place, because I believe that on principle it is extremely dangerous to put any kinds of controls on the information that libraries provide."

In April of 1999 the ACLU gets involved by writing a letter of support for TRL open access policies. They concede that children should be protected from offensive material at home and at school, but for some reason, NOT at public libraries.

Correspondence from Kathleen Taylor, Executive Director, ACLU of WA to Peggy Meyer:

Ms. Taylor writing of behalf of the ACLU of WA applauds TRL's Board of Trustees' current Internet policy which permits each library user to chose whether or not to use filtered or unfiltered access to the Internet. She writes: "I understand that at the April 20, 1999 Board meeting the Board will consider whether to change its policy to require that all Internet access be filtered. I urge you to reject this proposal."..."With respect to children's access to the Internet, your present policy leaves control with parents where it belongs, rather than giving control over the information toa filtering software company. Filters may be appropriate for use by parents in the home or for use in the public schools. However, your mission to serve the information needs of all in the community is quite different. She goes on to cite potential legal problems for libraries who install mandatory filters. She then lists the types of policies that libraries can implement and are, in her opinion, "legally sound":

1. Place a filtered Internet terminal in the children's area of a library, for easy use by patrons of all ages. No patron is required to use this terminal, but it is available for those who prefer it.

2. Adopt "responsible use policies" which require Internet users to affirm that they will abide by reasonable time restrictions and will avoid access to illegal material such as child pornography and obscenity.

3. Require the user to terminate the session responsibly, so that others are not forced to view material objectionable to them

Patron in supporting TRL policies, grinds his axe against feminists by making the protection of children a feminist's issue and equating her efforts to the Ayatollah Khomeini regime.

( ) who states he is a longtime American Civil Liberties Union member, retired journalist, former investigative reporter, editorial-page columnist and editor-in-chief, urges TRL to stand against the "venomous, hysterical onslaught of the public's right to read" by ( ). He writes: "Whether feminist or religious fundamentalist (and by her 'I felt invaded' rhetoric I suspect she is the former), ( ) has identified herself with those who would not only rob us of the intellectual freedom safeguarded by the First Amendment, but plunder all of our other constitutionally protected rights as well. ( ) must indeed yearn for a world in which our liberties are either dismembered in the man-hating frenzies sanctioned by gynocracy -- the female-supremacist totalitarianism privately advocated by feminists -- or struck dead by the savage godliness of theocracy -- the most telling example of which was the blood-drenched despotism of Iran under the Ayatollah Khomeini."

In conclusions he states: "...I nevertheless hope the library board will discover the courage to just say no to censorship -- to rebuke ( ) and her band of harpies for their irresponsible, brazenly subversive efforts to force the library to act as thought police in loco parentis, to reject all such unconstitutional demands, and to thereby honor the sacred principles upon which this nation was founded."

A former school librarian from Massachusetts, ( ) writes that she is opposed to Internet censorship in public libraries. She writes: "For my 11 elementary school I chose books, filmstrips and videos wit the knowledge that materials in the library were considered by parents and other members of the public to have the approval of librarians, teachers, and the school administration. In contract, as a trustee of the public library, I strongly supported the presence of some material that was not considered appropriate by this group or that group. Library users, individually, could make a choice for themselves or for their children." She goes to object to the use of filters because they may restrict access to necessary information on uterine cancer, testicular cancer, and other vital topics. She advocates the use of filtered terminals for those who chose to use them.

Letters from Protesting Staff – 2000

April 11, 2000

In an email on the subject of “Internet in the Library and Children”, a Youth Services Librarian (name redacted) states: “This whole issue has literally turned into nightmares for me both personally and professionally...As a Youth Services Librarian, I consider myself an advocate for youth. One of my jobs is to go out and invite kids into the library...I have reached the point where I feel very uncomfortable doing that. In my heart-of-hearts I don’t believe that the public library is either a safe or positive place for kids, attended or not. Last week, my husband brought my three stepchildren in to the library while I was working ...My 10 year old step daughter...saw the images on the screen in back of her, images I gather of adults having sex...This is hardly the first time such a thing has happened. Is it different because it was MY child? What really really bothered me was that I didn’t know what to say to her. “We let people look at whatever they want in the library because it protects our freedom (?!) “ That hardly ever happens and besides I didn‘t see it so I can’t do anything about it” (?!) “There are lots of weird people in the world, so let’s pray for the poor man” (?!)...”Next time you go to the library that won’t happen” (?!)...from my observation, it is true that having unrestricted Internet access in the library has attracted a whole new class of ‘patrons’, ones my ‘gut’ not my ‘intellectualism’ tells me I DON’T WANT ANYWHERE NEAR CHILDREN...You know, most people don’t complain to Thelma or the Daily World. They just don’t come to the library anymore....I have requested a six month unpaid leave of absence beginning in May...Maybe I am just burned out.”

Anonymous Letters from Staff

in 2000 after TRL had instituted parental choice and demonstrate that the problem of children accessing Internet porn continues to the present. Unfortunately they also reveal

a sense of intimidation felt by some employees, which hinders disclosure of the full extent of the problem.

The employees of Timberland Library have been told that if they speak out about their personal views of pornography at their libraries, they'll be fired. I'm writing this letter at this time without signing my name even though I hate doing that.

I can give you such inside information if you'll accept it without knowing my name. I will tell you I'm a very honest person and if I told you my name you would know it.

I want to tell you that the pornography issue at the libraries is worse than it was before. Many more children have discovered that they can come into the library, sign up for an hour every day at an unfiltered computer and make up to 50 free copies of graphic sexual material to walk out of the building with. Taxpayers need to know, in glaring headlines, that their tax dollars, which Timberland recently said they need more of, are paying for these kids to have copies of porno to trade at school. Girls in the library are printing out porno to give to boys and boys are giving porno to girls, right in front of us in the public building. They laugh and talk about graphic sites they're into. Young kids from grade schools come in, telling their parents they're coming to do homework on the Internet, then get into the porno, sometimes while the parent is in a corner reading a newspaper. It's very easy to hop in and out of sites. Many of these parents have said they chose unfiltered on their child's application because the child convinced them that they would never think of getting into anything bad. They are so WRONG! It's there, it's available regardless of age, and they are loving it. The kids are actually laughing at the adults allowing this.

I cannot understand how children cannot purchase "Playboy" at a store until they're 18 but they can print out 50 copies each day of the most graphic sexual images. (They make "Playboy" look like "Good Housekeeping.")

Timberland tells us that if people see what others, including young children, are viewing and complain, we have to say that they have the right to view what they want and the person complaining should avert their eyes, unless it's child porn. Only then can something be done because that's illegal. Well, these little children want, and do view, the adult porn.

Please let the public know that this is such a huge problem that is only getting bigger as the days go by.

I also work for the...Timberland Library System. My co-worker showed me the letter...is sending to you and I would like to add mine. I also am not able to sign my name, although I have never done anything like this before. However, we have been told that we cannot even give our honest opinion to the public, or talk to the press, and I am sure that talking to the Sheriff is just the same, so please excuse the lack of signature. ...although I love the other aspects of my job, the lack of commonsense the library district is showing in the use of the Internet makes us very concerned and angry.

We read with interest the columns which you did earlier on this subject on this subject, but I think that most people assume the problem has been corrected. It has not. In fact, the public outcry seems to have shown more kids what is available, and it is more of a problem in our library than it was before.

It is true that we now have filtered Internet access in the children's section in the bigger libraries, but it is also true that the children do not have to use those, and most kids over 12 and a lot under, choose not to. It is also true that Timberland sent out 60,000 letters to parents asking what level of access they wanted for their children, but most of the small percentage of parents who answered were parents who have small children or come to the library with their children, so they weren't at risk anyway. We have children who come in every single day without us ever seeing a parent, and the main problem is that if the parents do not choose for the children, the default is that the children get unfiltered. This is true both in libraries where we sign them up for the Internet, and in libraries where there is software so that patrons sign themselves up, and apparently this isn't going to change. I do not understand why the libraries are able to allow children to access pornography without being held responsible. I also do not understand why they WANT to be able to, since time after time it has been proven that this is detrimental to them. Video stores can't rent X-rated films to children, stores can't allow them to have adult magazines - why should we be different? We have been told that it is because we are a public building, but this seems contrary to logic - accessing pornography in public seems even LESS reasonable, not more!

We do not ask that you take our word for this situation, since we would rather that you don't mention our letters. Also, calling the library will probably not give you much information, since we all have our "party line" that is given to anyone who asks, which is basically a prepared speech.

What I would like for you to do is ask in your column if any other patrons have been offended by this practice, since I know several adult mothers and high school girls have complained to us without any success. I would like to give them a chance to come forward. And I would like for you to let people know that their tax dollars are still being used in this fashion.

We don't feel that it would help for us to quit our jobs -- helping kids learn to love reading and books is very rewarding, and so is helping them find appropriate information. We can be more help where we are than leaving our jobs to someone who believes in Timberland's policy.

But we need help, and the library district is not paying any attention to us. We have argued with this position for months, to no avail. Therefore, anything that you can do would be greatly appreciated. We are not just employees but angry taxpayers and concerned parents.

Summary Conclusion

In conclusion, we quote at length from a statement from the Lewis County Pediatric Society protesting library porn access.

September 27, 2000

Correspondence from the Lewis County Pediatric Society (and signed by 11 pediatricians) to the Timberland Board:

“RE: Unrestricted Internet access to pornography within our public libraries governed by the Timberland Regional Library Board.”

“We as the pediatric providers of Lewis County are astonished at reports that no measure was enacted at the last Timberline(sic) Regional Library Board meeting to protect the minor children in our communities from viewing online pornographic material in our public libraries...The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) advises parent to take definite steps to prevent their children from viewing pornographic, obscene, violent, hate-filled, racist, and otherwise offensive materials. They recommend use of software or services that can filter...We are opposed to the notion that ‘protecting our children from Internet pornography’ is in any way a breach of their First Amendment rights. It is rather our responsibility as professionals in the care of minor children to protect them from damaging material...A minor has no legal right to pornographic material in any court of law. In fact, providing access is in most cases a criminal violation...Let it be known that it is our preference that NO pornography be provided through our public libraries...It is a shame we have had to add to the list of warnings we give to parents---‘Beware of the Public Library. It is dangerous for your child.’”

Library staff and community members (as of dates of incidents and correspondence)