Young adult books prompt library clash

LANDER — The Fremont County Library System Board voted Wednesday to set a deadline for installing internet filtering on children's computers while postponing action on a proposed overhaul of the system's materials acquisition policy after an extended debate over sexually explicit content in the library collection.

The board met for nearly three hours, discussing policy updates and ongoing disputes over how the library should handle materials accessible to minors.

Trustees unanimously approved a motion directing the library director, working with the county's IT department, to install pornography filtering software on children's computers by the board's June 2026 meeting. The motion requires a progress update from county IT staff at the board's May meeting. If filtering is not in place by June, internet access must be removed from children's computers until the software is installed.

Board Chair Kristen McClelland, who introduced the motion, said the issue of internet filtering had remained unresolved for nearly two years.

"I'm just tired of kicking the can down the road every month," McClelland said. "It's time to put a deadline on it."

"We have not had incidents of children accessing pornography on the children's computers," said Library Director Anita Marple. "That's the reality right now."

McClelland said the motion was not intended to criticize Marple or suggest negligence but to ensure the board's previous directive is carried out.

"The IT department has told us there is no 100% guarantee for filtering the internet," Marple noted. "The only way to do that would be to disconnect the computers from the internet entirely."

On that point, board member Perry Cook said she wouldn't support disconnecting library computers from the internet because many patrons, including children, rely on the library for essential internet access.

"That would be a big disservice," Cook said. "Kids come to the library to do their homework, and it's really important to maintain that."

Trustees also approved a set of guiding principles for the library system, including commitments to providing materials representing diverse viewpoints and protecting patron privacy. The language will now be sent to the county attorney for review and released for public comment.

During discussion on the guiding principles motion, Anita urged trustees to include an explicit statement opposing censorship.

"There needs to be an affirmative statement from this board that we don't condone that," she said. "By leaving it out, it could be interpreted that censorship in our libraries is acceptable."

Board members Karen Wetzel and Marta Mossburg argued opposition to censorship was already implied in other language in the document.

"What do we mean by censorship?" Wetzel asked. "We have tried to move books to other locations, but I don't think we have tried to censor anything."

McClelland then googled "censorship" and read the results aloud.

The board ultimately passed the guiding principles without adding a separate censorship clause.

Board members also adopted a new ethics statement outlining expectations for board members, including standards for integrity, confidentiality and support for free speech and the exchange of ideas.

The board approved two paragraphs of revised language for the library system's materials acquisition policy, which governs how books and other items are selected for the collection.

However, the materials acquisition vote followed a split decision over whether the board should retain language stating that the library system's collection development occurs "with oversight of the board."

Several trustees and Marple argued the phrase blurred the line between policy over-sight and micromanagement.

"The board establishes policy," Marple said. "Anything beyond that is the board getting out of its lane and dealing in the operations of the library. Our bylaws say that collection development is delegated to the library director."

Wetzel said the "oversight" phrase reflected the board's duty as the library system's supervisors.

"As a board, there may come a time where we have a question on something that's being done with materials," Wetzel said. "We as the board have the right to do that."

The board ultimately voted to delete the phrase after McClelland cast a tie-breaking vote.

The most extensive discussion of the meeting centered on Mossburg's proposal to adopt a new collection development policy intended to prevent sexually explicit materials from being available to minors.

The proposal sparked sharp disagreement among trustees, with Wetzel and Mossburg arguing stronger restrictions are needed to protect children. The library's current protocol allows patrons to formally challenge books in the collection, triggering an evaluation process led by Marple and her staff.

"I don't believe in the term 'intellectual freedom,'" Wetzel said. "The policies that we have in place are not strong enough to stop books from being on shelves where they shouldn't be."

Trustee Julie Lefevre warned that the proposal was overly broad and could exclude a wide range of literature.

"You can't say that every book that references sex is inappropriate for children," she said. "Sexuality is not a crime but a gift through which each of us is here. If an 18-year-old in Wyoming – or younger – can get married, why can't they read about sexuality?"

Emphasizing the danger of broad strokes regarding references to sex, Cook read a series of scenes from the Bible that she said would be flagged under Mossburg's proposed policy.

In response, Wetzel said she does not consider the Bible to be a problematic inclusion in the library's collection because "it's more of a historical document reading."

Marple defended existing policies and procedures, saying the library evaluation process for challenged materials is in accordance with state law, and that books in the library's collection are rarely challenged.

"We're already doing our job in reviewing books," she said. "We have to leave room for every parent to be involved with their children."

Trustees ultimately agreed they were not ready to adopt the proposal and scheduled a work session to continue discussing potential revisions.

"I'm not willing to do nothing," McClelland said during the discussion. "But I am willing to work on something that we can agree on."

The board scheduled a work session for March 24 in Riverton to continue reviewing possible changes to its collection policies.

This story was published on March 7, 2026.