Commentary: Supervisor Butler Confirms Book Removal Requests But Stands By Removal Walk Back; Board Mum on Full Funding Library

After noting that he had spoken to constituents on both sides of the Samuels Public Library book removal and funding debate following Public Comments at the August 1st Warren County Board of Supervisors (BOS) meeting, six speakers on that topic in support of full library funding without removal of books, Happy Creek Supervisor Jerome “Jay” Butler addressed the library debate 50 minutes into that meeting.

“As far as the library, I’ve got some folks who feel that there should be no action taken against the library, and then I’ve got constituents who feel that there should be some books, well, not taken out of the library but just segregated. So, there is no one,” Butler continued, creating some chatter from the public gallery causing Chairman Vicky Cook to call for silence. “Madame Chair, so I have no constituents who want to see books banned. So, let me make that very clear,” Butler concluded on the topic as more chatter was heard from some public present, leading Butler to add, “Excuse me,” as he looked toward those reacting to his statement.

Jerome ‘Jay’ Butler on the job as Happy Creek representative to the WC Board of Supervisors. Royal Examiner File Photo

Several days later, we may have been alerted to the cause of the noisy public reaction to Butler’s comments. This reporter was made aware of the existence of two two-page Samuels Library “Request for Reconsideration” forms signed on May 5 by “Jerome Butler.” It was noted that the forms were received by library staff on May 7 and 8. According to the County website, Supervisor Butler’s name is Jerome K. Butler, with “Jay” acknowledged as his preferred way to be addressed. Books at issue in the two “Request for Reconsideration” forms were “Lawn Boy” and “Gender Queer: A Memoir by Maria Kohabe.”

In the forms, Butler acknowledges being alerted to the books he asks to be removed from the library as inappropriate content in emails from a constituent or constituents. In both “reconsideration” forms, Butler writes: “This type of literature is inappropriate in a publicly funded library. If anything, it should only be available in an adult bookstore.”

Supervisor Butler’s May Request for Reconsideration filing seeking removal of the book ‘Gender Queer: A Memoir by Maria Kohabe’ based on an email from a constituent.

Those addressing the library debate in support of maintaining full funding that evening, as well as at other meetings recently, see the book removal effort spearheaded by the CleanUp Samuels Library (CSL) group and its supporters largely self-identified with the local Catholic community and congregation of St. John the Baptist Catholic Church, as attempted censorship of books offering emotional support to youth facing internally generated gender identity issues as they reach puberty.

This reporter contacted Butler and his supervisor colleagues by email, as on the two cited Request for Reconsideration forms, Butler references himself representing an organization as opposed to himself individually, that organization being the Warren County Board of Supervisors. I asked Butler if he had submitted those forms and, if so, whether his colleagues were aware he had submitted them on behalf of the “Warren County Board of Supervisors.” I also asked about the apparent contradiction to his above-cited statement at the August 1 meeting that “no one” wanted to see books banned and that he had “no constituents” who wanted to see books banned while writing on behalf of a constituent or constituents he seeks two to be removed and banned from this community’s public library.

Mr. Butler’s Request for Reconsideration form for a second book, ‘Lawn Boy’ based on another constituent message. Butler admits to not having read either book he sought removal of, just his constituent’s email about it, and the summary available from the library.

“At the time I filled these forms out in May, it was apparent the library did not have a process in place other than to remove books. Now it appears they do,” Butler wrote in response, adding, “If you have any other questions, please let me know. Again, thank you for your inquiry.”

After speaking to library staff and receiving conflicting information about processes having been in place on such matters long before the current controversy, this reporter sent several follow-up questions to Supervisor Butler and one question to him and his board colleagues as a group:

“Thank you for your reply, Jay. I’m a bit confused as to the ‘it was apparent the library did not have a process in place other than to remove books’ at the time of the initial CSL movement on this issue. Did you inquire back then of the library staff or Board of Trustees on options they might have to review books cited for removal by the public? And if so, what were you told and by whom?

“So, are you saying that now that the library staff and trustees have approved the new categories on age restrictions and library cards offering increased parental control of younger children’s access to materials, CSL and its supporters NO LONGER want any books removed from the library?

“And if so, have you gotten that directly from CSL representatives? And even if you have, how would you know that NO ONE … doesn’t still want books removed?

“AND – here’s a final question for the entire BOS — Do these new actions by library officials, & a perceived change of stance by CSL and supporters, mean that the BOS as a group is now ready to release the three-quarters of a year balance of the library fiscal year funding?” signed with a thank you to Butler and his colleagues “for any additional clarification” and their time and attention.

This reply was received from Supervisor Butler: “Roger, I have no further comments at this time.” And along with Butler, none of the other supervisors replied to the final question directed their way as a group.

But as the ever-wise “they” say, “Actions speak louder than words.” So, as September approaches, its end marking the quarter of the fiscal year, the board majority of Jay Butler, Vicky Cook, Delores Oates, and Walt Mabe has thus far funded this community’s public library (Cheryl Cullers dissented in favor of authorizing full funding), we shall see exactly what that board majority’s interpretation of “good faith negotiations” on the library book content issue is.

And maybe we’ll find out if Supervisor Butler’s thus far unsupported contention that “no one,” at least in his district, wants to see books “banned” from this community’s public library rather just “segregated” from the Children’s Sections, is, in fact, true.

“Segregated” — Uh oh, what’s next, a Ron DeSantis-style banning of Rosa Parks and other books on the consequences of slavery in America and the necessity of the U.S. Civil Rights Movement from public schools and the public library? First, the library and gays; then public schools and the racial minorities; next religious or spiritual minorities; then what? — Could we eventually have an ultra-conservative, Iranian-style, faith-based government take hold right here in Front Royal and Warren County, USA?

And tomorrow, the nation?

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the letters published on this page are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Royal Examiner’s editorial team, its affiliates, or advertisers. The Royal Examiner does not endorse or take responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or validity of any statements made by the authors. The statements and claims presented in the letters have not been independently verified by the Royal Examiner. Readers are encouraged to exercise their own judgment and critical thinking skills when evaluating the content. Any reliance on the information provided in the letters is at the reader’s own risk.

While the Royal Examiner makes every effort to publish a diverse range of opinions, it does not guarantee the publication of all received letters. The Royal Examiner reserves the right to edit letters for clarity, length, and adherence to editorial guidelines. Moreover, the Royal Examiner does not assume any liability for any loss or damage incurred by readers due to the content of the letters or any subsequent actions taken based on these opinions.

In submitting a letter to the editor, authors grant the newspaper the right to publish, edit, reproduce, or distribute the content in print, online, or in any other form.

We value the engagement of our readers and encourage open and constructive discussions on various topics. However, the Royal Examiner retains the right to reject any letter that contains offensive language, personal attacks, or violates any legal regulations. Thank you for being a part of our vibrant community of readers and contributors, and we look forward to receiving your diverse perspectives on matters of interest and importance.