This week at the Massachusetts Library Association conference I announced what statewide services will look like for FY2006 as we move ahead with no federal funding. While we are able to maintain the Commonwealth Catalog, the Libby eBook platform, and some funding for eBook content, the ongoing federal funding instability has caused us to make significant reductions in database offerings. After the announcement, many people shared kind words with me and with our staff at the MBLC booth. Please know how much we all appreciate it.
I also had the opportunity to speak with Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell at the conference. As I’ve mentioned previously, through AG Campbell’s office, Massachusetts is part of a 21 state lawsuit to protect IMLS in the aftermath of President Trump’s Executive Order.
In that conversation, AG Campbell told me she wants the library community to know that the actions outlined in the executive order are illegal, and her office is doing absolutely everything in their power to stop it. They will not stop fighting. It was encouraging to know that at the highest level of state government, we have a staunch advocate who truly has our backs.
Last week Rhode Island district court judge John J. McConnell Jr. issued an injunction to stop the dismantling the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS). The order calls for IMLS employees to be recalled and for processing and disbursements of grants to be resumed. It also requires that reports be submitted to demonstrate compliance with the injunction.
The first report states that IMLS staff are being recalled and that some grants will resume.
We are watching the situation closely and reaching out to our colleagues in other states, but until or unless IMLS is fully restored and funds are flowing, the only fiscally responsible path for the MBLC is to continue to plan for FY26 without federal funding.
On the state side, this week the Massachusetts Senate has been debating their FY26 budget. Senators Oliveira, Rausch, and Collins filed amendments across several MBLC budget lines. During Wednesday’s session the last of the amendments was taken up. Here are the results:
Amendment 615 will add $500,000 to State Aid to Regional Public Libraries 7000-9401. This extra funding to the Massachusetts Library System and Library for the Commonwealth will have a big impact securing resources during these times of unstable federal funding. Sincere thanks go out to Senator Oliveira for his leadership in filing these amendments and his staff for being so responsive.
The Senate’s debate on the budget wrapped up yesterday, and their final budget is complete. The budget now goes to the House and Senate Ways and Means Conference Committee for debate on any line items that didn’t match each other in both budgets. Once that is complete, a final version will be presented to the Governor.
We will continue to share information as it develops from the state and federal levels, and please continue to reach out with questions anytime.
Sincerely,
Maureen Amyot
Director, Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners
Last week I discussed meeting room policies and many of the possible considerations you might want to undertake if your library offers meeting room space to the public. What should be kept in mind, however, is that, unlike with a library program, you have little control over the content of the meeting beyond what is outlined in your policy. Because of this, it can be extremely helpful to have something in writing that the patron/group that is booking the room fully understands their responsibilities to the library in order to use that room. A meeting room use agreement can serve this purpose. It can also provide a record that a user has fully read and agreed to abide by your policy and gives you the opportunity to request more information or review any expectations that may have been overlooked, usually in the form of missed or partially answered question(s) on the agreement form. If you decide to have a meeting room agreement as part of the process for reserving and using a room in your library, here are some things you may want to consider:
Policies are generally at their best when they encourage accountability on both the patron’s side and the library’s side.
Format
If you decide to require patrons who want to use your meeting room to fill out an agreement form, you’ll first want to decide what format you prefer for the agreement: digitally, in writing and/or in person. Online forms have the benefit of requiring answers to all the questions you consider to be most important, including a question that requires the requester to acknowledge that they have read your policy in full and agree to abide by it. The downside to a digital form is you won’t get a “wet” signature, so you may want to check with your town counsel as to whether requiring a statement such as “by writing my name below I agree on behalf of myself and my organization…” counts as a binding agreement. You will also want to consider those who have limited or no digital access and make sure you have printed copies of any digital form available for patrons to use as a substitute. Asking for something in writing means there will be a legal “wet” signature, but there is less oversight, and you may need to go back and forth with the applicant to cover any important questions that they missed, which can be time-consuming. This can be rectified by requiring the applicant to sign in person, but that can be a barrier to access if the person needing to fill out the agreement has trouble physically coming to the library. For many libraries, a digital agreement offers the best combination of access and accountability, but you’ll want to ensure that you’ve considered your options and decide on the one that best suits your needs and those of your community.
Sponsors & Contacts
Many libraries ask that any group using the room either be based in the community the library serves or have a community member as a sponsor. One of the benefits to this requirement is the library is able to ensure that they are, again, being good steward of tax dollars. By offering the room for community use, particularly if the room is offered free of charge* you are ensuring that the benefit of room use is staying within your library’s community. If this is a requirement you outline in your policy, you may want to ensure that your agreement not only has the information for the community member sponsoring the group, but also the primary contact information for the person running the meeting. In many instances, these may be the same person, but in the event the sponsor does not plan on attending, you will need contact information for a person responsible for the meeting in the event the library closes unexpectedly (inclement weather, power outages, etc.), the room is needed for in-library use, or other unexpected circumstances that make the room unavailable at any previously agreed-upon date and time.
Defining expiration
I mentioned in my last post that many libraries restrict the number of times a group or organization can use the library’s meeting room over the course of a year, to allow for more equitable access to the entire community. If this is something you are going require of the group, you’ll likely want to have a way to keep groups accountable to this and to other limitations that may appear in your policy. You’ll also want to allow yourself a bit of flexibility to update your meeting room policy as necessary, which means notifying anyone who has agreed to your policy that the terms have changed. In addition to keeping records of this (another benefit to using a digital form that will drop all the information into a spreadsheet), you may want to consider a time limit on the agreement itself. In other words, you may want to request that anyone requesting the use of your meeting room will need to sign a new agreement every year (or two, etc.). You can do this on a rolling basis (i.e. the agreement is “good” for 12 months after it has been signed, submitted and approved) which will give the requester the most time to take advantage of the room, but it will require you to check every month to see whose agreement may be expiring. Or you may want to consider a hard deadline for a new agreement. The requester may only get a couple of months’ “use” out of the room before they need to sign a new agreement, but you’ll only have one month when you’ll need to contact those whose agreement is expiring.
If you decide to follow the hard-deadline route, you’ll want to make a couple of things clear to minimize confusion when someone uses the room. You’ll want to decide on a date that is effective every year (or whatever time span you decide works best for you) and follow through when that date rolls around. For some, a calendar year may work best, meaning groups or individuals wanting to use the room will have to sign a new agreement every January 1st. For some libraries it may make sense for a fiscal year date (new agreement every July 1st). Whatever date you decide, make sure that date is clearly communicated in your policy, in any preamble you have to your agreement form and that you also clearly state that the agreement on file must be current in order for rooms to be booked.
Responding
If you are going to commit to holding people accountable for the use of the meeting room and following the policy that you’ve outlined, it’s only fair for you to be accountable in the timeliness of responding to their request. If you are using an agreement, prior to permitting any meeting room use, it will be helpful to the requester to give a minimum time frame for submitting the agreement. Do your best to accommodate the requesting person/organization, but make sure you give a minimum timeline that is also realistic for you to consistently complete or even ahead of the deadline. For example, you may want someone submitting an agreement no fewer than 14 days** in advance of their event. To communicate that you take their submission and your accountability seriously, you may want to consider indicating a response timeline; for example, “After submission, requesters can expect a response within 5 days.” If this is something you choose to do, you’ll want to make sure this is a timeline that, even under strenuous circumstances, is achievable for you. If you are usually able to get back to someone with approval or a request for more information in a day or two, it’s perfectly OK to build a buffer of an extra couple of days into your response timeline for those times when staffing is tight, reporting deadlines are looming, or unexpected circumstances pop up.
Speaking of tight staffing conditions, I recommend choosing someone to take care of keeping track of meeting room agreements and booking meeting rooms should you be unable to attend to request for any period of time (vacation, sick leave, conferences, etc.). For Directors, this is usually an Assistant Director or Head of Reference or similar position. If your library has limited staffing to begin with and you perhaps are only open a few days a week, you may want to consider having a chain-of-command type of responsibility matrix with 2 or 3 people who will be able to take over if you and your designated backup be unable to attend to responses for a period of time.
Policies are generally at their best when they encourage accountability on both the patron’s side and the library’s side. This way, all expectations are clearly laid out and each party involved knows what to expect from the other. This is particularly important with meeting room policies and any accompanying agreements you may use. Unlike a library-run program or general behavioral policies, libraries rarely have sufficient staffing to check in when an outside group is using the meeting room. In the best of circumstances, expectations have not only been clearly laid out but have also been fully met. Should that not happen and, for example, the meeting room’s condition after it’s been used doesn’t meet your expectations or you receive patron complaints, you are likely to find out after the meeting has ended, sometimes not until a day or more after the event. Ensuring that you have someone who is responsible for following through on the policy and knowing that the person (be they a sponsor or the person running the meeting) was fully apprised of your policy (and therefore, your expectations) before that meeting took place, eases the burden on your staff to monitor the meeting and give you recourse and a contact person to review the expectations and what was or was not met.
*Many libraries provide the use of their meeting rooms free of charge to the community. There are others who offer use of the meeting room for a nominal charge. Reasons and conditions under which a library will charge for meeting room use vary, but make sure your Trustees review their bylaws and any documentation surrounding any trusts that may have established the library before considering a charge for any kind of room use.
** Providing a number of days tends to be a clearer way to express deadlines. If you were to request a minimum timeline of 2 weeks, for example, it leaves room for possible confusion: did you mean from the day the agreement was submitted (which could be any day of the week)? Did you mean from beginning of the week it was submitted? What do you consider the beginning of the week: Sunday or Monday? If your library isn’t open daily, you may want to clarify “business days” or “calendar days” to ensure your expectations are clear to the person submitting the agreement.
LAL Honoree and Martha Pott at the May 20 awards ceremony
Massachusetts Center for the Book
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
May 21, 2025
Northampton, Massachusetts—Massachusetts Center for the Book (MCB) was pleased to celebrate a quarter century of its flagship program for young people, Letters About Literature (LAL), at a May 20 awards ceremony at the State House. This statewide personal and reflective writing initiative invites students from Grades 4 to 12 to read a book of their choice, reflect on it, and write a personal letter to the author, explaining the impact this work has had on them.
In welcoming the audience of twenty-five students and their families, legislators, teachers, and members of the library community, MCB Executive Director Courtney Andree praised the 2025 honorees, remarking that their letters represent the top percentage point of submissions received, revealing “a depth of emotional understanding, honesty, and maturity.” In their letters to authors, students addressed a range of issues that they are now facing, including struggles to overcome discrimination, displacement, loneliness, and bullying.
Representative Lindsay Sabadosa (First Hampshire) provided the legislative welcome in the Great Hall, taking up the example of beloved Massachusetts writer Louisa May Alcott. She noted that, “For Alcott, books were familiar friends—they made her feel safe in a world that was full of uncertainty.” Sabadosa congratulated the students “for reading voraciously, for being committed to learning more about the world that surrounds [them], and for sharing [their] experiences.”
This year, a special guest joined students for the festivities—Newbery Honoree and Mass Book Award winner Rajani LaRocca, who spoke about the books that continue to inspire her and how she has learned to balance her dual passions for medicine and writing.
This year’s competition was judged by Diane Costagliola, director of the Sandwich Public Library; Julia Sullivan, youth services librarian from the Chelmsford Public Library; and acclaimed YA author and Concord-Carlisle High School library technician Kip Wilson. They were supported by a team of screeners from the Simmons University School of Library and Information Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst, and Smith College.
About the Massachusetts Center for the Book
Massachusetts Center for the Book (MCB) is a nonprofit dedicated to inspiring a love of reading, honoring the rich literary culture of the Commonwealth, promoting unrestricted access to books and libraries, and fostering literacy and learning. Founded in 2000, MCB is charged with developing, supporting, and promoting cultural programming to advance the cause of books, libraries, and reading in Massachusetts. As the designated Commonwealth affiliate of the Library of Congress, the Center runs youth and family literacy programs, like the Reading Challenge and Letters About Literature; represents Massachusetts at the National Book Festival; operates the Massachusetts Book Awards and Mass Kids Lit Fest; and partners with community organizations on literary initiatives and events, big and small, across the state.
We received news this week that Rhode Island District Court Judge John J. McConnell Jr. issued an injunction to stop the dismantling the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) caused by President Trump’s Executive Order 14238 . The order calls for IMLS employees to be recalled to work and for processing and disbursements of grants to be resumed.
While this is good news, the MBLC continues to proceed with caution. Questions remain about federal compliance with this ruling and the outlook for federal funding for FY2026 is uncertain. As I have mentioned in previous updates, the MBLC is planning for FY2026 with no federal funding. That said, we cannot make up the federal funds via our state budget lines which are currently level funded in the FY26 budgets being debated at the State House.
On Tuesday, May 20, I will use the “State of the State” at the Massachusetts Library Association conference to make an announcement about statewide services that have been impacted by the uncertainty caused by Executive Order 14238. These services include statewide databases, the Commonwealth Catalog, and the statewide Library eBooks and Audiobooks (LEA) program powered by Libby.
After the State of the State, this information will be available at both the MBLC and MLS booths. It will also be emailed to the library community.
I have scheduled information sessions for people who are not able to be at MLA:
I look forward to seeing you at the MLA conference or at one of the zoom information sessions. Please continue to reach out if you have questions anytime.
Sincerely,
Maureen Amyot
Director, Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners
Yesterday, President Trump fired Carla Hayden, the Librarian of Congress who has been a champion of intellectual freedom. Hearing this news early today was both upsetting and infuriating. My colleague Karen Mellor, the Chief of Library Services at the Rhode Island Office of Library and Information Services framed the situation eloquently when she said, “The country is poorer now for the irrational removal of a respected and thoughtful leader of one of our nation’s leading institutions.” Dr. Hayden was the first woman and first African American Librarian of Congress. She was appointed by President Obama and confirmed by Congress in 2016, and served under the Obama, Trump, Biden, and Trump’s current administrations. Her entire career has been focused on equity in library services, patron privacy, outreach, and building diversity within the library workforce.
Dr. Hayden’s abrupt termination is a stark reminder that our freedom, including our freedom to read, is being challenged across the country. Hereat home we need to continue efforts to pass legislation that protects that right — and protects the librarians who work to ensure that all voices are part of library collections.
These are solid wins. In the long game they may move us closer to a return to reliable federal funding for libraries. But right now, the MBLC is facing difficult decisions that are based on what we do know: federal uncertainty persists. We cannot sign contracts or move ahead with services for FY2026 based on what we hope will happen with federal funding.
We’ve been asked if there’s a possibility that the flow of federal funding will return for FY2026. There’s always that possibility. And should the funding requirements align with the values we’ve held since our founding in 1890, we’ll gladly accept them and put them to work serving the people of the Commonwealth.
Please continue to reach out with questions. We appreciate your support.
If your library offers space that outside groups are permitted to use (either for free or as a rental), it’s extremely important that you have a solid, actionable meeting room policy and regularly communicate the requirements of that policy, even with the regular users. Though you are under no obligation to do so, welcoming the public to use a space within the library can be a valuable community asset, providing an opportunity that may otherwise be inaccessible to bring people together for a common goal.
The safety of your staff, yourself, your community and your spaces depends upon a policy that sets clear expectations and guidelines that fit within the constraints of the library’s regular responsibilities. There are a few additional benefits to having a solid, actionable meeting room policy that is regularly reviewed including:
Guidance for those unfamiliar with your policy to understand whether or not your meeting space is a good fit for their purposes, or if you will be able to accommodate them at all (ex. expected group size may exceed room capacity)
Familiarity with your own policy minimizes the amount of time spent reviewing the policy if someone contacts you with questions
Policy that explains your requirements clearly will save time for you and those wanting to use the room
When you start to review this particular policy, there are a few items that are somewhat idiosyncratic to this particular type of policy.
Before I begin, a quick disclaimer: many of the recommendations for meeting rooms have been determined through court cases. This information is publicly available should you wish to dig deeper. You can find some starter information here. However, I am not a lawyer. I have no intention of interpreting these cases for you nor should the information I’m passing along be considered legal advice. As I’ve mentioned before, any policy that you consider ratifying through your Board of Trustees should be reviewed by an attorney (counsel for your municipality is usually a good place to start) to ensure that you are compliant with the most current decisions and are protecting yourself and your library.
Limited Public Forum
If your library opens your meeting room to outside groups, it will likely be considered a limited public forum. This means anyone using your room must abide by open meeting laws. If a group is using the room, anyone walking by has the right to sit in on their meetings, which should be open-door at all times. Staff have the right to sit in and ensure policies are being followed. This should be clearly spelled out so that the group understands the possibility, however unlikely, that someone will wander in, sit down and listen in.
Equitable Use
Article VI of the Library Bill of Rights states, “Libraries which make… meeting rooms available to the public they serve should make such facilities available on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use.” Provided they agree to all of the terms and conditions in your meeting room policy, a group that may be personally disagreeable to you or your staff likely has the right to use the room. For example, they may have said that meetings of a political nature were not permitted in the library’s meeting room, regardless of the alignment of the politics being discussed. This seems neutral on its surface (the library isn’t allowing ANY type of politics in its meeting room, not just politics with views that may be disagreeable or controversial), but the courts have found that the argument doesn’t really hold in practice.
If you are going to limit use of your library’s meeting room, it must be done based on “reasonable content-neutral time, place or manner restrictions” (Pfeifer v. City of West Allis, 91 F. Supp. 2d 1253 [E.D. Wis. 2000]). If you’ve been to one of the webinars that the MBLC, MMA or several other organizations have hosted on this and similar subjects, you’ll have heard this phrase. While this limits the library’s in it’sability to limit users of your public meeting room space, that does not mean that you need to endorse the use.
Endorsement Not Required
If an outside group books a meeting room for any purpose that is permitted by your library policy, that does NOT mean that it is a library program. You are within your rights to have your policy clearly state that use of your meeting room facilities does not imply endorsement by the library. The ALA has the suggested wording: “Libraries do not advocate for or endorse the viewpoints expressed in meetings by meeting room users, just as they do not endorse the viewpoints of works in their collections,” but you can decide the most effective way to express this. You may also want to consider making it clear to anyone wishing to use your meeting room facilities that the library may NOT be listed as anything but a location for that particular meeting. Library staff should NOT be collecting registrations or answering questions for any outside group. You are under no obligation to post an outside program on your public calendar. If your calendar program has a private staff view, you can keep your staff informed to make the appropriate arrangements in the room being used, and you can state very clearly on the event post that this is not a library-affiliated program and the library does not endorse the program in any way. If that’s the case, remember that this disclaimer must be used for every program regardless of whether or not it’s a program that the library may consider booking as a library program at a later time. Be upfront with those viewing your calendar and follow through on your policy which has made promises to the meeting room user for every booking.
Usage
You are well within your rights to :
reserve meeting space for library use first
reschedule, cancel, or change a meeting if you need to use that room for a library program or special event. From a public service standpoint, a library should do its best to accommodate a new option for someone booking the room for a conflicting date, but that doesn’t mean that once a group has booked a room, you are prevented from having your own library event or offering services in that room if it’s necessary for essential library functions.
define how much any one organization or individual may use a room in a 12-month period, and how far in advanced a room may be reserved
This ensures that the room is available for use to your entire community without any groups monopolizing its use. You can look at the meeting room policies in your area and/or libraries that are similar to you in size, staffing, and meeting room usage. I’ve seen several policies that restrict to 1x/month, no more than 12 uses per calendar year, and no bookings more than 3 months in advance. Ultimately, you know how much your community requests the use of your meeting rooms so it will be up to you what limits are reasonable and will not create an undue burden on your facilities and staff.
You are under no obligation to offer use beyond the space itself. For example, if your meeting room has AV equipment or other technology, art installation options, unusual furnishings (beyond what someone might reasonably expect in terms of a table and chairs), you can make it clear in your policy that these amenities are for library use only and outside users are permitted to use the space, not the equipment.
If you decide to offer the use of certain equipment in the meeting space, make sure you’ve fully considered and outlined in your policy what is and is not available. If tech is available, will you require them to use their own cables, or replace any cables, dongles, or attachments that may be unaccounted for after the meeting? Will you request that your custodians or other library staff set up the room to the group’s specifications, or will you require that, if the group needs to arrange the furniture to suit their needs, that they also return the room to its original configuration? As always, you know your patrons and your community best and you can determine the best ways to accommodate them without placing an undue burden on your staff or your facilities.
You are well within your rights to consider these questions, balancing the needs of the community and the needs of the library. Don’t forget that the needs of the community include the members who do not need or choose not to use your meeting room and how they may be affected and, most importantly don’t forget to factor in the needs of your staff. Once you’ve decided, make sure you outline those determinations in your policy so that everyone has clear expectations and knows exactly what will happen when the meeting room is booked for outside use.
Just like there is more than 1 facet to patron rights and responsibilities and collection development policies, meeting room policies are similar in this regard. Next week, I’ll go in the to agreement and accountability side of meeting room policies. I hope you’ll join me!
In the meantime, with FY2026 rapidly approaching, the MBLC continues to navigate and plan for staff and services in a rapidly changing environment. Some states have received IMLS reimbursements (including us—more information below) and there are reports that funds for FY2026 are coming. On the surface these sound like positive developments. However, with little to no staff at IMLS (the majority of IMLS employees were placed on a 90 day leave at the end of March) and what appear to be new requirements to receive funding, questions remain about IMLS as a reliable source of funding.
Some quick background: Prior to President Trump’s Executive Order, IMLS required the MBLC to submit a five-year plan that sets broad strategic direction for the use of federal funds, and after five years there is an evaluation. Plans and evaluations are on the MBLC website.
Now, compliance with other executive orders filed by President Trump may be part of the process to receive IMLS funding. In late April, the MBLC received the email below from IMLS Acting Director Keith Sonderling asking the MBLC for the following information:
From the Sonderling email: Pursuant to 20 USC § 9134 and your obligations under the Grant Award Guidance and Statement of Assurances and Certifications, please provide IMLS with the following information:
Whether and how federal taxpayer dollars provided to you under the Grants to States program have been used, or are still being used, to subsidize programs that conflict with government policy as found below:
Executive Order 14151, Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing, and
Executive Order 14253, Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History, and
Executive Orders 13899 and 14188, Combating Anti-Semitism and Additional Measures To Combat Anti-Semitism, and
Executive Order 14168, Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, and
Executive Order 14202, Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias, and
Executive Order 14190, Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling, and
How federal taxpayer dollars provided to you under the Grants to States program are being used to facilitate access to resources that cultivate an educated and informed American citizenry, and
How you plan to involve your agencies in the upcoming celebration of the 250th anniversary of the United States of America?
The MBLC is responding with the requested information. That said, the MBLC remains committed to serving everyone—it’s what we have done since 1890 and it’s what we will continue to do.
In terms of reimbursements, as a sort of trial run, the MBLC submitted a small reimbursement to IMLS on April 6. Nearly a month later, we received notice that reimbursement is being processed. Before President Trump’s Executive Order, turnaround time for reimbursements was a few days. This lag time may be indicative of the ongoing challenges of trying to run IMLS with little to no staff.
Both the instability at IMLS and the Sonderling email serve as indicators that at this point, federal funding remains uncertain. This places the MBLC in the position of planning for FY2026 without federal funding. The broad effect of President Trump’s Executive Orders, impacting more than libraries, and creating funding challenges across the state, means that the state budget cannot make up the total loss of the $3.6 million in IMLS funds the MBLC receives.
At yesterday’s MBLC board meeting, I called the situation dire. For example, the state House Ways and Means budget, which level funded all MBLC budget lines, leaves us short in our agency line, 7000-9101. Without the increase of $415,000 to this line as requested in the FY2026 Legislative Agenda, and in spite of cutting absolutely everything possible from that line, the MBLC cannot cover the basic costs for the agency – salaries and the lease on our office space. There isn’t any place else within our budget lines that funding for agency operations can come from.
In terms of MBLC staff, we’re already lean—having gone from a staffing high of 38 in previous years to 23 current staff members. To provide the services required in Massachusetts General Law Chapter 78, we need every single person we currently have on staff. If we cut staff, we will have to cut services, and that would put us out of compliance with state law.
For FY2026, we continue to work on plans and are in constant communication with the Massachusetts Library System (MLS) and vendors as we figure out funding levels that would allow us to continue as many services as possible with the funds we have left.
Our efforts now turn to the Senate which will release its budget proposal this month. It is crucial that progress is made towards the funding requested in the FY2026 Legislative Agenda, especially budget line 7000-9101, Board of Library Commissioners.
Sincerely,
Maureen Amyot
Director, Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners
