Library Hours Six Months Later, part IV: Public libraries' rules

Dear Diary,

Most libraries have documents online that list things their visitors shouldn't do, and go into some degree of detail about consequences.  Several of the things listed by many libraries are hard for homeless people to avoid doing, or are strongly associated with homeless people.   Those are the subject of this part.  First, I'll talk about the relevant kinds of rules; then, about specific, quoted, rules from each library from the previous two parts which offers free cards to people who live in Seattle.  I'll also talk about each library's discussion of rule enforcement, and, as best possible, about how many homeless people were found in each library's service area in the last point-in-time count before March 14, 2020.

The Rules

Hygiene Rules

Most libraries explicitly say people shouldn't smell so bad that it bothers other people.  I think this is an obviously justifiable rule.

There are two basic ways for homeless people to avoid breaking this rule.  One is to shower often.  My experience was that I couldn't really plan anything else for days I showered.  Not that showering consistently took that long - it didn't - but that how long I'd have to wait to shower, or whether the place I usually showered would be unexpectedly closed that day...  I wasn't clean often, so when I had to do things that called for cleanliness, they had to be the next things after I showered.  But too often that meant the day after the uncertain day of the shower.  There are homeless people in Seattle who shower daily.  I have no idea how they do it, how many hours of each week they have to devote to that practice, but I'm quite sure they need to live close to multiple showering locations, which in Seattle means living downtown.  Flipside of that, outside major cities, there aren't many places for homeless people to shower.  Finally, without storage (which I, admittedly, had), it's hard for homeless people to maintain much of a wardrobe, so if each shower also has to be accompanied by doing laundry - well, I assume that would at least square the amount of time required.

So the other way to avoid breaking the hygiene rule is to be alone, but in a library that can be challenging.  There's a place on the 6th floor of Seattle's Central Library where a desk, with an electrical outlet nearby for a laptop, sits next to a copier, but nothing else is all that close.  That was my preferred place while I lived on Capitol Hill, after I became homeless.  Once I moved north, there was a single desk at the upper northwest corner of Suzzallo Library, dozens of feet from the next (double) desk.  I spent years there, but eventually one particular student found a way to consistently get there first, and I had to become migratory.  (I'm pretty sure Suzzallo has now retired all of its single desks like that one, in favour of double ones.  Bad luck for the next studious homeless person.)  While migrating, I once chose a spot poorly, and my laptop was stolen while I was at lunch.  After that I used to work at the farthest public computer from the employees' desk, in the basement.  But that wasn't remotely isolated enough, and complaints about me rose to levels that forced the librarians to act twice.  So one librarian pointed out that there was a much more isolated public computer in the government documents room, and that proved to be my last stand in libraries as a homeless man.

In smaller libraries?  I remember a librarian objecting strongly to a spot I picked at the University branch once, as far away from other patrons as I could get, but pretty much blocking a little-used pathway.  I think it's a lost cause for a smelly homeless person to spend much of the day in a small library.

Camping Rules

As I've described to you, dear Diary, it isn't always clear what housed people mean by "camping".  After the lockdowns started, during which entire time I had a cart, I was repeatedly told that the act of removing satchels from it constituted "camping".  But I'm pretty sure that doesn't make every grocery trip, for housed people who have such carts, a camping trip.  Must be something unique to homeless people.  Anyway, most libraries ban "camping", whatever they do mean by it.  And to be fair, sometimes it's pretty obvious that some homeless person really is camping at a library, or actually, in my experience, always outside the library (but still on library property).

Now, in general, places for unsheltered homeless people to be safe from the rain are not numerous in Seattle, let alone smaller towns, so it can be argued that I'm not sympathetic enough, but I think setting up a tent right outside a library is basically doing what the proverb about not doing Number Two where one eats is warning against.  It's genuinely hard for homeless people in general to obey hygiene rules.  While it may be hard for particular homeless people to obey camping rules, I think that could only be so if they were being really stupid.

Sleeping Rules

Many libraries have rules against sleeping at the library.  Now, I think there's an obvious purpose for a no-sleeping rule:  to keep the library from being overrun by people who want to sleep in the daytime, or simply in a relatively safe place.  But actually, sleeping rules are usually in lists described as being about annoying other users of the library.  And that, in turn, isn't the real excuse for them.  Rather, when libraries get fully explicit about sleeping rules, they link them to access.

One distinction relevant here is how one sleeps.  Obviously, in most libraries, one can't lie down without blocking access to something.  So many libraries' rules explicitly bar lying down, separately from sleeping.  But even if one sleeps sitting down, I think the libraries' argument goes, one is denying other users access to the chair one is using.  No, this isn't a joke.  I've occasionally seen libraries fill up entirely, at least to the extent that I can tell without hiking all the building, but only academic libraries, so I'm not sure what public libraries are doing with this argument, but I guess they're just being optimistic.  (And sufficiently small libraries without a lot of seating - well, I've already explained why most homeless people shouldn't spend time in such libraries.)

Although I was very often tired while homeless, I rarely had trouble with these rules, not because I didn't sleep much in libraries, but because I almost always slept seated [1], and because I took such pains to hide my smelly self.  In one of the weeks that snow closed the UW, I learnt that the Northeast branch was open, so I trundled over there (nobody shovels sidewalks on 15th Ave NE, it turns out), and unsurprisingly, on getting inside, and thus warm in the daytime, for the first time in two or three days, fell asleep.  A librarian woke me and said that wouldn't do.  I very vaguely remember being woken once at Seattle Central Library, which doesn't mean that was the only time.  I frequently dozed off mid-mornings at UW's Suzzallo Library, which was difficult to handle in the months I worked near the basement service desk (where I was not only quite visible, but on a bar-stool-like piece of furniture), but at other times possible, and never [1] interfered with by staff.  Curiously, now that I'm housed, I'm much more likely to get sleepy later in the day, late mornings and early afternoons, both while working and while not working.

During my first spell of street homelessness, in 2003, I lost library privileges for years at the University of Wisconsin libraries; what started that complex situation [2] was that I was found asleep by a custodian after the library closed, which certainly did break lots of rules.

Sleeping rules are often paired with camping rules, but they're also often paired with something else:

Loitering Rules

Few libraries around here have explicit rules that can be interpreted as loitering rules, and fewer actually use the word "loitering".  But I have, in fact, been threatened with exclusion for being in a library without a library-related purpose.  (I'm not sure of the exact wording, but that's a quote.)  I'm pretty sure it was at an SPL library, too.

The problem with these rules is that they can only be selective.  Which of the following is a "library-related purpose" ?

• Visiting Seattle Central Library, or a Carnegie library, to ooh and aah at the building.
• Reading a newspaper the library subscribes to.
• Using the wi-fi offered by the library to play a game.
• Reading a library book, rather than checking it out.  (Does it make a difference if it's a reference book?)
• Waiting for one's reserved time on a library computer.
• Dithering over which items to check out.
• Dithering over which cheap or free books offered by that library to buy or take.
• Talking quietly with a friend.
• Getting warm (without falling asleep), and dry enough to look at books, after walking through snow.
• Using the restrooms.
• Contemplating the article one just read.
• Considering one's next move.

Taken seriously, a loitering rule means going to the library at the time of one's computer reservation (if relevant), then after that's over, expeditiously finding the things one wants to check out, checking them out, and leaving.  Maybe staying a little longer with one's nose continuously in a reference book or a current magazine that isn't circulating yet.  Very few of the people at a library at any given time are being that expeditious, and librarians in general don't mind.  A loitering rule is a "gotcha" rule, a rule designed to let employees pick pretty much anyone they want to kick out, which, unsurprisingly, is often a homeless person.

Box Rules

I don't know of a better name for these rules than this unclear one.  SPL has a very specific rule saying how much stuff one may bring with oneself into a library, naming a specific volume of space.  They actually supplied the individual branches with physical boxes of that size for enforcement purposes.  Hence, box rule.  More libraries have this sort of thing than have explicit loitering rules.  It should be obvious why it's problematic for homeless people to obey these.  As already mentioned in this page, this rule has never been enforced on me, and I've never figured out on what basis library staff decide which violations to object to, which not.  (I give an extreme example below, sv Puyallup Public Library.)  So in practice it's another "gotcha" rule.

The point of a box rule is to prevent people from taking up too much space in libraries, blocking others' access to materials, paths, etc.  Most libraries have rules, separate from box rules, requiring patrons not to block aisles, shelves, etc.  (This is the rule I couldn't help breaking when I went smelly to SPL's University branch, as described above.)  But many larger libraries include spaces where quite a bit of stuff can be non-obstructive.  A box rule is a procrustean solution to the problem, and is one of the least warranted rules a library can have.

Grooming Rules

Some homeless people come up with ways to use ordinary restrooms to keep clean.  (I never did, as witness what I wrote above.)  These rules say, not in library restrooms.  I assume because such activities make the restrooms less welcoming to housed people, and also because they tend to leave a lot of water on the floor, a slipping hazard until a custodian mops it up.  I wonder if these rules existed back when libraries had paper towels available to mop that water up, and if so, how much of the motivation was the cost of getting paper towels and keeping them in stock.

[1] During the months I spent migrating with my laptop, the place I most often spent my days was a sort of standing mini-desk built into the structural supports on the second floor of Suzzallo Library.  Since I wasn't physically able to stand all day every day, I sometimes lay down beside the little-consulted nearby shelves of Russian literature, and although I tried not to, sometimes fell asleep while doing so.  Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure I was woken by a staffer once there, a student staffer at that, how humiliating.

[2] It's one of the most Kafka-esque situations I've ever been in.  The specific privilege I lost was the ability to have a non-University of Wisconsin-affiliate borrower's card.  Since the main library I visited required some kind of card to get in, this also meant I couldn't enter without going through bureaucratic rigmarole for a day pass.  (It was just a side effect that I could no longer borrow materials.)  The justification was that the library needed to know when I was there (hence day pass) because I was such an inveterate rule-breaker.  The proof that I was a contumacious offender was that I wouldn't promise to stop doing what I'd done.  The problem with that was that I didn't know what I'd done.  Obviously, I'd slept in the library, and stayed after hours, two separate rules broken (and since that wasn't the first time I'd slept in a U Wisconsin library, I was very reluctant to promise anyway).  In the discussion, however, I was also alerted that I'd broken a rule by not notifying the library when my address changed, i.e. when I became homeless.  In addition, I was informed that I'd broken other rules, but the staffer - actually, circulation manager - who took credit for revoking my card specifically refused to tell me which ones.  The promise was to be that I'd stop doing all these things, those known to me and also those not known to me, and I couldn't ethically promise that.  I don't know whether housed rule-breakers were subjected to the same kind of dilemma by the same staffer.  That staffer has finally retired.  It's possible that if I returned to Wisconsin, I could sort things out and be treated like any other resident.  But for most or all of the years I was homeless in Seattle, this was a major reason I was unwilling to try to resolve my homelessness by throwing myself onto the mercy of my family.

The Libraries

The Seattle Public Library

The 2020 point in time count (PDF, pages 23 and 24) found 4,428 sheltered and 3,738 unsheltered homeless people in Seattle, total 8,166.  Yes, I know the King County Regional Homelessness Authority says many times that number are homeless in King County in any given year, but what all counties in Washington do is point-in-time counts, and even though these counts' completeness varies and is never all that good, still, I want to compare apples at least to kumquats, and not to blast furnaces, so I'm using official point-in-time counts.

SPL's "Rules of Conduct" include:

• A hygiene rule:  "Having offensive body odor or personal hygiene so as to unreasonably interfere with other patrons' ability to use the Library and its facilities."  (In the Category A list, "Library Specific Violation".)
• A camping rule:  "Camping on Library grounds."  (Category A.)
• A sleeping rule:  "Lying down or appearing to be sleeping in the Library" (Category A.)
• The prototypical box rule:  "Bringing in items excluding personal items (purse, laptop, briefcase) that occupy floor space in excess of 14"W x 17"H x 20"L. Items are measured in totality and must be placed and fit easily into a measuring box of the above dimensions."  (Category A.)
• A grooming rule:  "Using restrooms for bathing or shampooing, doing laundry, or changing clothes."  (In the Category B list, "Serious Library Specific Violations".)

SPL does not at this time have a loitering rule documented online, and I'm not sure what the staffer who once objected to my lacking a library-specific purpose was quoting.

Enforcement:  "Authorized Library staff and/or Seattle police officers may intervene to stop prohibited activities and behaviors. Failure to comply with these rules may result in: 1) withdrawal of a person's permission to remain on Library property and/or 2) issuance of a Notice of Exclusion from Library property for a period of one day to two years, as provided in policies and procedures issued by the City Librarian.

"A criminal law violation may also result in arrest and prosecution."

The enforcement procedures as described don't seem to take into account which category any given violation is.  Categories D and E include, but aren't limited to, misdemeanors and felonies respectively.

King County Library System

The 2020 point in time count (same PDF and pages as for Seattle) found 1,745 sheltered and 1,840 unsheltered homeless people in King County exclusive of Seattle, for a total of 3,585.  It did not break out how many of these people were in Hunts Point or Yarrow Point, but not more than 586 of the sheltered and 446 of the unsheltered, total 1,032, were found on what I've heard called "the Eastside", which includes those towns.

KCLS's "Patron Code of Conduct" includes:

• A hygiene rule:  "Bodily hygiene or scent so strong as to constitute a nuisance" (in group 1, "Unsafe or Disruptive").
• A rule that could, by a sufficiently creative librarian, be interpreted as a loitering rule (or a grooming or sleeping one):  "Activities inconsistent with normal library uses" (in group 2, "Inappropriate Use of Library Privileges or Property").

There's relatively little about enforcement, but here:  "Failure to comply with this and any other established KCLS policies could result in restriction of library privileges, immediate removal from the premises or exclusion from the library for a period of one day to one year, or in arrest or prosecution."

Sno-Isle Libraries

Snohomish County's 2020 point-in-time count has been inadequately reported.  I wouldn't expect to be able to find out how many homeless people were in suffering Woodway, but Everett is a different matter.  Here's what data I do have:  In Snohomish County total (PDF), 459 sheltered and 673 unsheltered, for a total of 1,132.  Specifically in Everett (apparently PDF), 642 total, and 348 shelter beds.  I conclude that the Snohomish County part of SIL's service area, plus Woodway, had 490 homeless people, of whom probably fewer than 200 were sheltered.

Island County's 2020 point-in-time count found (PDF) 129 homeless people.  The link in this paragraph is to a state report to which I had some trouble getting access at the private site where they store it.  (And for some reason when I tried to download it, I got the 2017 report instead.)  The 2020 report is, however, for many counties, including Island County, the only reliable reporting.  (In Island's case, two newspaper articles disagree on the numbers.)  When I refer to the state report below, I mean that link.

All in all, the 2020 point-in-time count probably found about as many homeless people in the Sno-Isle Libraries' service area as in the Everett Public Library's service area.

SIL's Customer Conduct Administrative Policy includes:

• A hygiene rule:  "Offensive body odor and other personal hygiene practices, including excessive scent, which unreasonably interfere with other customers’ ability to use the library and its services."
• A sleeping rule:  "Conduct, including sleeping, that adversely impacts other customers’ access to library services, resources, or spaces."

Highlights of the long enforcement discussion:  "Willful and persistent failure to comply with the Customer Use of Library Spaces Policy may result in loss of library privileges", normally with warnings first but not necessarily.  From there it may escalate to a "suspension".  "In the case of a suspension, Sno-Isle Libraries reserves the right to issue a trespass notice through the appropriate law enforcement agency. Any incidents involving illegal activity may be reported to the appropriate law enforcement agency. When library privileges are suspended, the customer will lose access to all Sno-Isle Libraries facilities, grounds, physical materials, and electronic resources for the duration of the suspension."

Kitsap Regional Library

The 2020 point-in-time count (PDF) found 334 sheltered and 199 unsheltered homeless people in Kitsap County, for a total of 533.  However, for some reason the state only knows of 524 of them.

KRL's "Policies", whose first section is titled "Standards for Patron Conduct", include:

• Something very like a loitering rule, without using the phrase:  "Patrons not engaged in reading, studying, research, meeting or using Library resources appropriately may be asked to leave the building."  And of course, the "appropriately" formulation also pretty much justifies enforcement against sleepers and groomers too, as at KCLS.
• A hygiene rule:  "Personal hygiene will conform to the standards of the community for public places. This includes the repair or cleanliness of clothing and bodily hygiene."
• Something approaching a box rule, but more defensible:  "Library patrons may not bring into the library large bundles or packages which cannot be placed safely within the patron’s personal space."

The entire enforcement discussion:  "Library staff and/or local law enforcement officers will intervene when standards for patron conduct are not being met. This may be up to and including written trespass, arrest and prosecution.

"RCW 27.12.290: A board of library trustees may exclude from the use of the library under its charge any person who willfully and persistently violates any rule or regulation prescribed for the use of the library or its facilities or any person whose physical condition is deemed dangerous or offensive to other library patrons."

The Everett Public Library

As we sort of established not far above, in the 2020 point-in-time count, Everett city government reports that 642 homeless people were found in Everett, of whom at most 348 were sheltered.

EPL's "Rules of Conduct" include:

• A sleeping rule, first on the list:  "Lying down or sleeping."
• A hygiene rule, third:  "Poor bodily hygiene or scent so strong as to interfere with others use of the library or offend others."
• Something not far from a loitering rule:  "Inappropriately using areas of the library designated for specific functions or age groups.  For example, the internet stations are for browsing the internet and the children's room is for families and patrons browsing for and reading children's literature. Inappropriate use may include but is not limited to, resting, sitting, or lingering, but not using the area as intended"
• A grooming rule:  "Is inconsistent with normal library uses.  Examples include, but are not limited to, changing or washing clothes, bathing, shaving, hair washing, or any other extensive personal grooming. "
• Something rather close to a box rule:  "Interferes with access to the facility or library materials, including ... bringing in large bundles or large quantities of personal belongings...."
• A camping rule:  "camping on library grounds."

The entire enforcement section:  "Failure to comply with the established rules, regulations, and policies, or with any reasonable request from staff, may result in removal from the premises and exclusion from the library pursuant to City Policy, or in arrest or prosecution. Violations may also result in the restriction and/or termination of library privileges including, but not limited to, the use of library computers and other equipment."

The Tacoma Public Library

Pierce County conducted a point-in-time count in 2020, and is proud of having put the "full dataset" (PDF) online.  The full dataset does not include where in Pierce County people were found.  However, the City of Tacoma helps out here:  a presentation to the City Council (PDF, page 5 of 9) says that 544 of the people found in the 2020 count were in Tacoma.  This is one reason I more or less gave up on surveying the Tacoma parks last fall, even though I suspect this 544 is among the worst estimates of the real total in this page, and could conceivably be low by as much as a factor of 10.

As noted in part II, TPL doesn't have its policies online.  This is a longstanding issue, and to figure out what happened, I had to plunder the Internet Archive.  The Archive has covered TPL's home page rather inconsistently, with a few visits in 2001 and 2002, one in 2010, and then more from 2014 onward.

In 2001, while TPL didn't have its policies in general online, it had "Rules of Behavior Governing the Use of Tacoma Public Library Facilities" that included:

• A grooming rule:  "Making use of the restrooms for purpose for which the restrooms were not intended, including but not limited to, bathing, shaving, washing hair, or washing clothing. The restrooms are for use by library patrons only."
• A sleeping rule:  "Sleeping in the Library is prohibited. This use is not an intended use of Library Facilities and deprives other patrons of the use of the space occupied by the person violating this rule."  This is what explained to me the bizarre logic by which this rule is said to be about access.
• A hygiene rule:  "Materially interfering with others’ use of Library facilities because of poor personal hygiene."

All these are in a list titled "Other grounds which may merit loss of Library privileges".

The Archive captured later versions of this policy in 2006, 2011 and 2015.   TPL enacted a box rule in 2002, as noted in part II.  Here's the 2006 version:

"Interfering with, obstructing, or blocking free passage on Library Premises. This includes restricting passage with bicycles, skateboards, carts, backpacks, or anything that creates obstacles or takes up seating or table space."  (That was already there in 2001.)  "The maximum allowable article measurement, either individually or collectively, will be set at:  18” in length, 16” in width and 10” in height.  To ensure safe and comfortable passage of library patrons, ALL personal items must fit comfortably under one (1) library chair."  (This is the new part.)

By 2015 the policy, though not re-titled, had been re-formatted, broken up into lettered categories such as we find in SPL's current policy (but here explicitly relevant to enforcement), and its wording had changed considerably.  It included:

• A hygiene rule:  "Having offensive body odor or personal hygiene so as to unreasonably interfere with other’s ability to use the Library and its facilities."
• A less rigid box rule:  "Bringing in items, excluding personal items, (purse, laptop, and briefcase) that occupy floor space in excess of what will fit beneath one library chair."
• A sleeping rule:  "Sleeping or appearing to be sleeping in the Library"
• A grooming rule:  "Using restrooms for bathing or shampooing, doing laundry or changing clothes"

All of these were in category A, "Violation of Library Rules (non-criminal)", which was further described thus:  "Duration of exclusion is a verbal warning to a maximum of thirty days".

As of March 7, 2016, in connection with its switch to Bibliocommons, TPL had changed domain names and revised its home page.  The Archive includes no more copies of the behaviour rules.  There was and is a new link in a footer, to "Policies", but from that day forward, that link has led to an "under construction" page.

So yesterday (April 12) I walked through small pellet hail in both directions to get to and from TPL's Swasey branch.  Which turned out not to have a policy booklet either, but a librarian there went to a lot of trouble to explain why.  Turns out that the library director since 2018, Kate Larsen, hired as her executive assistant someone whose other title is "policy analyst", Latasha Ware, and tonight, April 13, the library's board of trustees was to vote on some of her work.

Well, um.  TPL also doesn't put the minutes of their board meetings online, which means I didn't and won't see even an edited version of the board packet with the old and new policies, and anyway the policy in question tonight wasn't the behavior rules but their close relative, the enforcement rules.  But Ms. Ware did say that she's doing a more sustained presentation at the board meeting June 15.  So perhaps by July TPL will have its code of conduct on its website like all the other libraries.  Ms. Ware did say (not a direct quote) that she wanted policies that encouraged people to come to the library, rather than ones focused on keeping people out of the library.

Timberland Regional Library

Grays Harbor County's 2020 point-in-time count found 108 people, according to the state; the county itself produced a graphic (PDF) showing about 130.  Either way, the [Aberdeen] Daily World reports that the count relied on homeless people from all over the county to actually show up at a specific place (admittedly, a "Resource Fair") to get counted.  I think it's safe to assume that that was a significant undercount.

Lewis County's 2020 point-in-time count was done both as two events in different parts of the county and as what I'm more used to, a search, according to the [Centralia] Chronicle, so should be more in the ballpark.  Nobody seems to have reported the results except for the state, which says it found 142 people.

Mason County actually reported some numbers its own self (PDF, page 5 of 8), in actual number form.  Hallelujah.  It found 111 unsheltered people, then promptly undercut that number, again its own self, by noting that in 2019-2020 172 people who were "literally homeless" sought assistance.  Unfortunately, the count of 111 is attributed to attendance at two events (PDF).  The state report significantly increases the number, to 178.

Pacific County, according to the state, found 60 people.

Thurston County did a search in the urban areas and events for the rural ones, to summarise a really long and informative discussion of methodology.  It found 995 people (PDF, page 15 of 49).

So the state's total is 1,483 for the five counties of TRL's service area, plus Mossyrock, Napavine, Pe Ell and Vader in Lewis County and Ocean Shores in Grays Harbor County, which are the local equivalents of Hunts Point.  How reliable that total is, I have no idea.

TRL's "Behavior Expectations" handout (PDF) includes:

• A combined rule:  "Sleeping or camping on library property"
• A hygiene rule:  "Unhygienic conditions, including odor"

Enforcement is discussed in some detail in the "Disruptive Patron Behavior Policy" (PDF), which also refers to a "Disruptive Patron Manual", believe it or not.  The policy is unusually clearcut:  law enforcement is only called when a law is being broken.  The problem is that refusing to leave the library when told to is also considered breaking the law.

Pierce County Library System

I have no idea how many people were homeless in PCLS's service area according to the 2020 point-in-time count.  This isn't because of Carbonado, Fircrest, Roy and Ruston, nor for that matter the Pierce County parts of Enumclaw and Pacific.  It's because of Puyallup, and maybe the Pierce County parts of Auburn.  (That city has a really good page on homelessness, which relies entirely on King County numbers.)  As I said in part II, Puyallup doesn't do much on its own about the homeless, and in particular, unlike Everett and Tacoma, doesn't bother to publish its own point-in-time count number.  And it's rather too big to ignore.  So all I can tell you is that the PCLS and Puyallup Public Library service areas, plus Carbonado, Fircrest, Roy and Ruston, plus the Pierce County parts of Auburn (if), Enumclaw and Pacific, found 1,353 homeless people in the 2020 point-in-time count.

Anyway, PCLS's "Library Rules of Conduct" include:

• A hygiene rule:  "Bodily hygiene that unreasonably interferes with others’ use and enjoyment of the Library."
• A combined rule:  "Using library facilities and grounds for purposes other than those intended by the Library (e.g., bathing, camping, washing)."
• A sleeping rule:  "Sleeping or appearing to be sleeping in the Library"

All those are in a list of "behaviors and activities [that] are defined as unacceptable and will not be permitted".  NB this includes neither a loitering nor a box rule, the two best designed for selective enforcement.

A separate page deals with enforcement.  One distinctive element is "permanent trespass".  Someone to whom this is applied can appeal after three weeks, but if that appeal fails, their next chance is 5 years later.

The Puyallup Public Library

As noted above, the 2020 point-in-time count found no more than 1,353 homeless people in Puyallup, and probably considerably fewer.

PPL's "Code of Conduct" (PDF) includes:

• A sleeping rule:  "Sleeping or appearing to sleep in the library"
• A grooming rule:  "Bathing, shaving, or washing clothes in the restroom"
• A box rule:  "Bringing in a bag or bag(s) [sic] that are larger in area than 18 inches by 14 inches by 8 inches in total size".  Wow.  If I brought in a box of hardcover books to donate to the Friends of the Library book sale, I'd be breaking that rule.
• A hygiene rule:  "Bodily hygiene or scent so offensive as to constitute a nuisance to others.  This includes perfumes, colognes, lotions and other scented products"

The entire enforcement section:  "PPL staff and/or local law enforcement may intervene to stop prohibited activities and behaviors.  Failure to comply with city or library staff directives, established policies, rules, and regulations could result in removal from the premises and exclusion from PPL.  Violations could also result in the restriction and/or termination of library privileges, including library computers and other equipment."

OK, that's it for the libraries from part II.  Now for those in part III that might offer Seattleites library cards.

The Port Townsend Public Library

Jefferson County's 2020 point-in-time count found 139 homeless people, according to the state.  There's evidently a shelter in Port Townsend, so my guess is that a substantial percentage of those people were in that city.  (Not just the sheltered people, but also anyone who wanted to be sheltered, and probably even a few people who just had friends in one of those groups.)

PTPL's, and in fact the City of Port Townsend's, "Sharing the Space Policy" includes:

• A sleeping rule:  "lying down or appearing to be sleeping"
• A hygiene rule:  "personal hygiene and clothing conditions should be maintained so as to not unreasonably interfere with other visitors’ ability to use the facility."

And I do think that's it.  Again, no gotcha rules.  The entire enforcement section of that policy:  "Visitors may be asked to leave the facility if these rules are not adhered to and may be trespassed by the police."  And I don't see a separate enforcement policy.

North Olympic Library System

The state reports that Clallam County found 198 homeless people in its 2020 point-in-time count.   I'm impressed that on that basis the county hired consultants to compile a 63-page report (PDF) last year.

NOLS's "Basic Rule of Conduct" (PDF) is abstract enough that it needs "Enforcement Guidelines", i.e. actual rules.  Those include:

• A hygiene rule:  "Creation or emanation of any odor that can be detected from six feet away"
• A sleeping rule:  "Sleeping in the library"
• A camping rule:  "Camping on library property"
• A grooming rule:  "Bathing, shaving, or washing clothes or personal possessions in restrooms"

All the rules except the gotcha rules, this time.  There's a notable shift of emphasis in the enforcement policy:

"Library visitors who fail to observe this basic rule:  will be asked to discontinue the unacceptable behavior; may be asked to leave the library for a period of up to one (1) week.  At the discretion of the Library Director, a longer suspension of access to library premises, and/or an extension of the access ban to other library branches, may be imposed."

Unfortunately, this is balanced by a comparable-length list of reasons law enforcement might be called.

Central Skagit Library District

According to the state, Skagit County found 314 homeless people in 2020.  The Sedro-Woolley School District, which is the City of Sedro-Woolley plus the actual Central Skagit Library District, the partners in the actual library, has a population of about 28,000, which is about 20% of Skagit County's population, and I skimmed a very long presentation to the Sedro-Woolley City Council (210 page PDF, the presentation from pp. 90-210), the gist of which is that Sedro-Woolley has just as much of a housing shortage as every other place in Skagit County.  So very roughly, one might expect about 60 homeless people in the CSLD/CoS-W service area.

The CSLD's "Patron Code of Conduct" (PDF) includes:

• A hygiene rule:  "Unhygienic or offensive physical conditions"
• What's probably intended primarily as a grooming rule:  "Misuse of library bathrooms or other areas"

Again, no gotchas.  It also, amusingly, goes back to high school, barring "Excessive public displays of affection".

The enforcement paragraphs notably include this:  "Violations of an extreme manner will be immediately reported to the police. If police must be called to handle a disruption or violation, those involved shall not return to the library until
meeting with the Central Skagit Library Board of Trustees at the next designated meeting. The Board reserves the right to deny reinstatement of privileges at that time."  That said, I have no evidence that either the hygiene rule or the grooming rule normally gets police enforcement.

Whatcom County Library System

Whatcom County reports that it found 707 people homeless in 2020.  The state only reports 687.  I find no breakouts of the number in Bellingham, though it's surely a substantial percentage of the total.  There seem not to be any municipalities in Whatcom County too poor to support a public library.

WCLS's "Disruptive Behavior" list includes:

• A grooming rule:  "Using the restrooms for laundry or bathing."  (Under "prohibited activities".)
• A hygiene rule:  "Having a personal scent or odor so strong as to be offensive."  (Under "activities [that] may be deemed inappropriate".)
• A combined rule:  "Sleeping or loitering — remaining in the library without being engaged in library-related activities."  (Also under "may be".)

Well, darn, there goes the string of no-gotchas lists.  (Although "may be" is intrinsically gotcha anyway, so in a sense the fact that the hygiene and sleeping rules are half of that list is better than some alternatives.)  Actually, this list is what prompted me to say (wrongly) that this was the first library I'd covered with a loitering rule, and then decided to write this part rather than the scattered way I'd covered rules in part II.

The enforcement procedure fills as much space as the rules do, and as usual isn't pleasant reading.  I didn't notice anything distinctive, except that it's all in outline form.

The Bellingham Public Library

As noted above, I don't know how many of the 707 homeless people Whatcom County found in 2020 were in Bellingham, but assume they were a fair number of the total.  Bellingham's total population is about 2/5ths of the county's, and I'd be pretty astonished if its share of the county's homeless were less.

BPL's "Rules of Conduct" include:

• A sleeping rule:  "Sleeping" (first on a list of "Disruptive behavior")
• A loitering rule:  "Loitering" (same list)
• A hygiene rule:  "Offensive bodily hygiene" (same list)
• A grooming rule:  "Using the restrooms for bathing, shaving, washing hair or clothing" (in a list of "Use ... for purposes not intended")
• A camping rule:  "Camping on library property, indoors or outdoors." (same list)

I can't imagine how they missed enacting a box rule.

Again, I don't see anything special about the enforcement section.

The Camas Public Library

Clark County had 916 homeless people counted in its 2020 point-in-time count, according to the state.  According to a 2020 report (PDF, page 7 of 9), 53 people out of 2689 who contacted the Homeless Crisis Response System of Clark County were in Camas, or 2%.  So it probably wouldn't be completely unreasonable to guess that Camas had about 18 homeless people, except that I'm not at all convinced that few would've provoked the article I cited in part III.

Anyway, CPL's "Rules of Conduct" "include, but are not limited to:"

• "Any activity in violation of federal, state or local law, or Library policy."
• "Interfering with library operations or other library users, including disruptive noises and unsafe behaviors."
• "Blocking any access, including library aisles or passageways."
• "Bringing animals, other than service animals, except as authorized by the Library."
• "Weapons are prohibited in the Library unless permitted by law."

Yes, really, that's it.  Either they haven't had occasion to consider, most obviously, a hygiene rule (which is pretty hard to believe), or they've consciously decided against having one.  This is why I praised them in part III.

So in summary?  14 hygiene rules.  6 camping rules.  11 sleeping rules.  2 explicit loitering rules, but most of the rest include something about "appropriate" use of the library that can be twisted to the same purpose.  3 box rules.  9 grooming rules.

Good night, dear Diary.  I've already started work on what is now part V, conclusions and analysis about public libraries' hours, but it'll still take a while longer, so good days and nights until it's done.