House panel rejects proposal to dissolve Arkansas State Library and Board

Yahoo

10-04-2025

Sen. Dan Sullivan (left), R-Jonesboro, and Rep. Wayne Long (right), R-Bradford, present to the House Committee on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs a bill they sponsored, Senate Bill 536, to abolish the Arkansas State Library on Wednesday, April 9, 2025. (Tess Vrbin/Arkansas Advocate)
An Arkansas House committee Wednesday rejected a bill that would abolish the State Library and its board, making it difficult for the proposal to make it to the governor's desk by the end of the legislative session April 16.
Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Jonesboro, has repeatedly promised to dissolve the State Library Board and broadened this mission when he filed Senate Bill 536 last month. He told the House Committee on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs on Wednesday that the State Library and local libraries need more 'accountability' to the government entities that fund them.
SB 536 passed the Senate last week by the slimmest possible margin. It would transfer the authorities, funds, contracts and employees of the agency and its board to the Arkansas Department of Education. The State Library is already under the department's umbrella but operates independently, and its board disburses state funds to public libraries on a quarterly basis.
Education Secretary Jacob Oliva said the department is more than capable of carrying out the State Library's responsibilities, but committee members were unconvinced. Rep. Stan Berry, R-Dover, said he had 'little faith' that the department's oversight would resolve any of the issues Sullivan said he had with the State Library and its board.
Arkansas Senate narrowly OKs dissolution of State Library; bill heads to House
Berry and seven other committee members voted against SB 536, and five more were absent or did not vote. Seven members voted to pass the bill, including Rep. Wayne Long, R-Bradford, the bill's House sponsor, who called the State Library Board 'too big for their britches.'
Long and Sullivan said they took issue with the board rejecting two motions last month to protect children in libraries and to detach from the American Library Association. At the same meeting, the board passed a separate motion aimed at protecting children in libraries while upholding the First Amendment.
Conservatives statewide, including State Library Board member and former Republican state senator Jason Rapert, have called for libraries to keep children from accessing content considered inappropriate for them. SB 536 would codify several new criteria for libraries to receive state funds, including 'prohibit[ing] access to age-inappropriate materials to a person who is sixteen (16) years old or younger.'
SB 536 defines 'age-inappropriate material' as 'books, media, or any other material accessible at a public library containing images or explicit and detailed descriptions' of sexual acts, sexual contact and human genitalia.
Bobbie Guerra, a homeschooling mother from Lowell, said putting the Department of Education 'in direct control of public libraries would put homeschooling parents who utilize libraries as educational resources at the mercy of… what [it] deems age-appropriate.'
Additionally, SB 536's language was just as 'flawed and fatal' as that of Act 372 of 2023, said Arkansas Library Association President-elect Adam Webb, referring to a Sullivan-sponsored law partially blocked in federal court that the state is appealing. The blocked sections of Act 372 would have given local elected officials the final say over whether to relocate challenged library materials some consider 'obscene' and made librarians legally liable for disseminating such materials.
SB 536 does not mention 'obscenity' or 'sexually explicit' material despite its supporters routinely mentioning the latter, Webb said.
'When judges tell you, 'Here's the type of speech that you can regulate, [here's what is] sexually explicit, here are the definitions,' use it,' he said. 'Don't reinvent the wheel, but here we are again two years later with the same vague language.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Webb is also the director of the Garland County Library, and he was one of nine Arkansans who spoke against SB 536.
Judy Calhoun, the recently retired director of the Southeast Arkansas Regional Library system, and Faulkner-Van Buren Regional Library director John McGraw said SB 536 created 'unfunded mandates,' such as requiring libraries to have interlibrary loan programs and to meet minimum hours of operation per year in order to receive state funds.
Journalist, professor and historian Sonny Rhodes said he had a problem with the bill changing the oversight of certain historical records, which the State Library currently oversees.
'If SB 536 results in the loss or restricted access to such databases, it could hinder research efforts, making it harder to produce informed and accurate academic research,' Rhodes said.
Four Arkansans spoke for the bill, including representatives of the Family Council and the all-Republican Saline County Quorum Court. All four said they struggle to attend their local libraries with the children in their families due to content they consider inappropriate and easily visible.
The committee spent several minutes debating two sex education books that Greenbrier Republican Rep. Stephen Meeks, a member of the committee, challenged in 2021 with the goal of removing them from the Faulkner-Van Buren Regional Library.
However, SB 536's appropriateness criteria includes a limited exception for sex education materials, which would be accessible to minors between 12 and 15 years old. Those under 12 would not be able to access such materials if their parents or guardians have forbidden their access in writing.
SB 536 also puts specific higher education requirements in place for library directors. Rep. Jeremy Wooldridge, R-Marmaduke, said this provision led him to oppose the bill because every library director in his Northeast Arkansas district 'would have to be replaced.'
Rep. Howard Beaty, R-Crossett, also voted against the bill and said 'both sides are going to lose.'
'Shame on y'all… I think this could have been resolved very easily,' Beaty said. 'Folks dug their heels in and decided they weren't going to negotiate.'
Deputy Editor Antoinette Grajeda contributed to this article.