Recording in progress.

Good afternoon, everyone.

I'm Matt Freuman, Ward Three Council Member and Chairperson of the Committee on Human Services.

Today is Thursday, October 29, 2026.

We are meeting in person in room 412 of the John A.

Wilson building in virtually via Zoom.

The time is now for twelve p.m.

Uh today we are conducting a public hearing on B26-0816, the Board of Library Trustees Technical Amendment Act of 2026.

The District of Columbia Public Library was established in 1896 by an act of Congress.

Last May, the board amended its bylaws.

Some of the changes were technical, while other substantive changes incorporated long-standing practices that have served the board well.

As we have no public witnesses for this hearing, we are now joined by Richard Rez Gavilon, Director of the District of Columbia Public Library.

Excuse me.

A set of modest administrative updates unanimously approved by the Board at its regular public meeting on May 27, 2026, and now before you for consideration.

First, the legislation updates the officer election cycle for the Board of Library Trustees.

Current statute requires the board to elect the president annually.

This change provides greater leadership continuity and reflects the approach the board has followed since January of 2021, when the shift was unanimously adopted under the direction of then Board President Gregory McCarthy.

Second, the bill modernizes the statutory title for DCPL senior leadership position.

Existing law refers to the librarian of the public library, language that no longer reflects DCPL's organizational structure.

The update substitutes the titles used for decades, chief librarian or since 2014 executive director, ensuring that statute aligns with the position's contemporary title.

Third, the legislation updates the requirements for DCPL's annual reporting to the council.

While statute currently mandates a February 1 submission, in practice, DCPL participates in the Council's annual performance oversight process according to the timelines set each year by the council.

Renaming the submission annual oversight report and tying its due date to the council's established schedule will provide clarity and ensure statutory alignment with how oversight already occurs.

Fourth, the bill introduces improvements to the provisions governing third-party revenue generating activities on library property.

These provisions do not apply to DCPL's own revenue generating activities.

The amendments clarify and modernize this section of the code by replacing the term permit with clear fee-based use permit, authorizing the board or its designee to issue such permits, allowing fees to be set according to a board approved schedule, and permitting fee waivers when doing so serves the public interest or alleviates undue hardship.

DCPL currently has guidelines that describe how the agency issues fee-based permits, the types of organizations allowed to generate revenue on library property, and the circumstances under which the library issues permitting fee waivers.

While the board reviewed and supported the clarification of these statutory provisions, this portion of the bill did not require and therefore did not receive a board vote.

Taken together, these minor amendments ensure that the DC code reflects the board's bylaws and DCPL's actual operations.

They do not confer new powers or authorities.

Rather, they ensure that the code accurately represents the transparent practices already in place at DC public library.

Thank you for your attention and consideration of these updates.

I am joined this afternoon by the library's chief of staff, Joy Mex.

We're happy to answer any questions the committee may have.

Thank

you.

Well, thank you very much.

You did me the service of running through the proposed changes, so that helps us uh proceed efficiently, I think.

Uh I won't make you go through them again.

I guess one question

is why why

now?

As you stated in your testimony, some of these practices have been in effect for 10 years.

What was the impetus for DCPL to approach us now to make these changes?

Well, um the board adopted these changes, many of them in years ago, but you know, our general counsel, who's not here today, thought it would just be good for us to make sure that the library's bylaws and the code were perfectly aligned.

We don't anticipate any problems considering these have been standard practices for years, but it's just good governance.

Okay.

Regarding the annual report that DCPL submits to the council, for how long has the library been submitting the same report as the one provided to the council during the oversight process?

Uh certainly as long as I've been here and probably many years before.

Um, Joy, you've been here 18 or 19 years.

I'm guessing that it's probably been as long as you've been here as well.

It has been as long as I have been here.

And is there any difference between the requirements of the annual report and what's been required under the oversight process?

No, because all that's ever been requested was an annual report.

And so our responses to the oversight questions, frankly, is more robust and more detailed than any annual report that we would provide the city or the board.

So we just wanted to make it clear that the answers that we submit to the council's um Committee on Human Services in this case are that that annual report.

Oh, and what ordinarily might be inside of an annual report is much more modest than the full responses to the oversight questions.

It says, you know, an annual report on the agency's operations the previous year.

So it's very vague, something that if you know presumably you could probably answer that question over the course of five or ten pages, and as you know, we submit hundreds of pages to the council every year.

And as you know, we submit hundreds of pages to the council every year.