When Brian Walter requested a book from his local library, he didn't expect an email informing him the title had been "weeded" — a library term typically used for removing outdated, damaged or unused materials from circulation.

But the book wasn't removed because it was worn out or unpopular.

Instead, it was one of dozens of titles pulled from Mohave County library shelves after county supervisors rejected a donation that had already been accepted, cataloged and added to the collection — a move critics say allowed elected officials to sidestep the library district's established review process for challenged materials.

By using a little-known provision governing donations, the Mohave County Board of Supervisors removed books it deemed inappropriate without triggering the policy normally used to evaluate complaints about library materials. While supporters of the effort say they are protecting children from sexually explicit content, records obtained by LOOKOUT show many of the targeted titles centered on LGBTQ+ characters and themes. And while the claimed intent has been removing books from the hands of youth, the books have been removed entirely from libraries — including for consenting adults.

The controversy began during a February 2026 meeting of the Mohave County Board of Supervisors, when Supervisor Ron Gould pulled a routine agenda item involving $19,021.50 in donated books from the consent calendar. Gould objected to one title in particular: The Beautiful Something Else by Ash Van Otterloo, a middle-grade novel featuring a nonbinary child and a transgender aunt.

He said the book uses magic to “explore self-discovery, acceptance and finding your true self. I think that book is unacceptable for eight-year-olds.” 

The donation consisted of books that had already been received, cataloged and added to library collections between July and December 2025. The board ultimately voted to reject the donation, setting off a chain of events that led to the removal of dozens of books from library shelves across the county.

Sarah Ferry, a community advocate, filed complaints with the American Library Association and the Arizona Governor's Office, arguing the board's action lacked clarity and failed to provide adequate public notice. She also noted in her notes that the board’s decision resulted in more books removed than the public was told. 

In response, the governor's office said it could not intervene because Gould is a duly elected county official.

Gould also did not respond to a request for an interview from LOOKOUT. 

The dispute also exposed tensions between elected officials and the Mohave County Library District's advisory structure.

Erin Roper, a member of the library's Citizens Advisory Committee and a professional librarian, presented supervisors with a petition containing 588 signatures opposing the removals. She told the board that public feedback was "overwhelmingly against government censorship" and argued parents — not government officials — should decide what their children read.

“If we allow the government to bypass professional policy, to remove 20 books now, we open the door for any future government to remove anything they personally dislike later,” Roper said, according to agenda minutes. “Political values change, but our commitment to professional standards should remain constant.”

Another member of the community mentioned during a meeting that Gould’s argument to protect children from books he said were inappropriate was, “Nothing more than a political dog whistle meant to play upon people's fears and well-meaning virtue so that they look the other way while their rights are taken.”

For Walter, the debate quickly moved beyond policy.

The Kingman resident said he attempted to obtain The Beautiful Something Else through interlibrary loan after hearing about the controversy. He later received an email informing him the book had been removed from the collection.

"I can't just go to Amazon," Walter said, referencing his lack of finances to buy books. "Our tax dollars support the library."

Gould has argued the board acted within its authority under an Arizona law that gives county supervisors the power to accept or reject donations.

But records obtained by LOOKOUT show the decision had broader consequences than simply declining a gift.

In correspondence sent to community members, Library Director Jake Barillaro explained that because the books were classified as rejected donations, the specific copies had to be removed from circulation. For titles without additional copies in the system, the result was complete removal from county collections. 

Critics say that process allowed the board to remove materials without using the library district's established review procedures. Adopted in 2013, the policy outlines a formal process for challenging library materials, including review by an ad hoc committee made up of librarians and community members.

Barillaro confirmed in the letter the board did not use that process before voting on the books, but has been used in previous challenges, he said, leading opponents of the board's action to argue supervisors bypassed an established system designed to evaluate contested materials.

At the center of that criticism is what opponents describe as a procedural loophole. Because the books entered the system as donations, supervisors were able to reject them under their authority over county gifts rather than through the library's established reconsideration process. The result was the same as a successful book challenge — the books disappeared from shelves — but without the professional review typically required under district policy.

Gould has said the dispute is not primarily about procedure but about whether the books belong in a taxpayer-funded public library.

In an emailed letter to the editor of Havasu News, Gould wrote: "The question before us is should the board accept inappropriate books for children from an unknown donor and place them on the shelves of a property tax funded government library?"

Supporters of the removals contend taxpayers should not be required to fund books they consider inappropriate for minors.

Emails obtained by LOOKOUT show some supporters justified the removals with anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric. In one email to Gould, Pastor Roy Hagemyer urged supervisors to remove and destroy the books, describing them as "abominations" and "perverted." Gould thanked Hagemyer for the message.

Questions also emerged about the scope of the board's action.

During its March 2 meeting, supervisors voted 3-2 to reject what was described as 13 books. However, supporting documents provided to the public and library staff listed 20 unique titles.

Barillaro later explained that multiple copies and series volumes increased the total number of physical books affected. In all, staff removed 36 books from library shelves countywide.

The list extended beyond LGBTQ+ titles and included popular manga series such as My Hero Academia and Haikyu!!, along with the young adult series Hush, Hush.

The discrepancy between the number discussed publicly and the number ultimately removed became another point of contention for critics, who argued residents were not given a clear understanding of the board's actions before the vote.

The controversy continues to evolve.

Board Chairman Travis Lingenfelter, who initially voted against the removals because he had not individually reviewed the books, has since proposed broader policy changes. Among them are requirements for parents to periodically reauthorize library accounts for minors and a content-rating system for materials containing what the proposal describes as "mature themes."

Those proposals have raised concerns among librarians and free-expression advocates, who argue they would place additional barriers between young readers and library materials. They also question the bureaucracy and technical systems available to do what the board has requested.