We're pretty big fans of the principle of data minimization and so is the ALA . In general, this means that only the minimal amount of PII necessary to complete a particular task or process should be collected, stored, or used. I think that the minimum amount of patron PII that needs to be used for invoices between libraries is no data at all, while the minimum amount of patron PII that needs to be used to communicate with patrons about lost items is what we have on the printed bills right now. The big difference between PII on invoices and printed bills is necessity:The direct URL for items was added to the Payments Between Libraries report starting in December 2024, which allows Authorized Users (library staff) to access deleted items and view recent circ information. If your library was including patron information on invoices between libraries, you may use the direct URL to an item or its barcode instead. Let me know if you have any questions on this.
Invoices sent to libraries do not need to have patron PII since other non-PII information, such as the item barcode (or the item's URL in the case of deleted items), can be used for processing the invoice. Furthermore, because some libraries may require board approval to process payments, the invoices could end up being viewed by board members -- who are not authorized to access patron PII -- or maybe even others who have access to board meeting materials.
The printed bills that we produce definitely need to include patron information (so they can be mailed!) and most likely need to include item information, too. I have heard from a couple of our friends in other consortia who have tried generating overdue notices (both print and email) without item information and have had mixed success, so I'd argue that item information is, unfortunately, probably necessary.
ALA has joined forces with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the largest union representing museum and library workers, in a lawsuit that challenges the Trump administration’s gutting of the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS). The legal actions were filed on behalf of ALA and AFSCME by Democracy Forward and co-counsel Gair Gallo Eberhard LLP, asking the court to immediately block the dismantling of IMLS as directed by a President Trump executive order on March 14 . Since IMLS was created and funded by Congress in 1996, the agency has had bipartisan support, having been reauthorized under the Clinton, George W. Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations. IMLS is bound by laws requiring that the agency conduct certain activities to support libraries and report on important issues to Congress. The complaint argues that cutting IMLS staff and cancelling grant contracts will violate the law by eliminating programs Congress has funded and directed IMLS to undertake. Libraries play an important role in our democracy, from preserving history to providing access to government information, advancing literacy and civic engagement, and offering access to a variety of perspectives. These values are worth defending. We will not allow extremists to threaten our democracy by eliminating programs at IMLS and harming the children and communities who rely on libraries and the services they provide. Wondering what you can do to help? Check out our toolkit at ALA.org/showup . You’ll find out how to:This lawsuit is in addition to the one filed April 4, 2025 by twenty-one state attorneys general, including New York's AG Letitia James.Thank you for all you do for your communities. Now is the time to take action and mobilize your communities to show up for our libraries! Learn more here.
- Call or email members of Congress.
- Find social media templates to share the info.
- Share your library story to remind funders why libraries are important.
- Arrange a congressional tour of your library.
- Schedule an in-district meeting with your Congressmember.