Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-01-16 JM Customer CommentsJanuary 16, 2018, BLT Agenda Item Comments Comments on the Newport Beach Board of Library Trustees (BLT) agenda items submitted by: Jim Mosher (jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 1. Minutes of the November 20, 2017 Board of Library Trustees Meeting The minutes appear reasonably complete and understandable to me. They do omit an episode in which the Board quite pointedly rejected a rather trivial written suggested correction to the October minutes. To me it was one of the more memorable moments of the meeting, but to others it was probably less memorable. Item 2. Customer Comments November Comment No. 2: The Board may wish to seek clarity as to what Wi-Fi “licenses” are, who they are purchased from and at what cost. I thought the Library had transitioned to the CENIC internet network, with supposedly immense bandwidth. Does CENIC charge us a fixed rate (in which case one would think the Library would be incomplete control of how the data stream is allocated among users)? A rate based on bits of data delivered (in which case I would, again, think the Library would be in control of how it is allocated)? Or a rate based on how many devices are connected? If it is the latter, I would suspect the Library could make more efficient use of the “licenses” it has. For example, could it “disconnect” devices that are not actively in use? I would suspect many WiFi users may connect for a few minutes and not bother to disconnect. There likewise might be unused laptop or desktop connections, as well as unused staff connections (especially or Saturdays and Sundays as Central) that could be disconnected when not in actual use. Failing that, at times when there is a shortage of WiFi licenses, could that limited number of licenses automatically transition to something like the CASSIE system, by which a limited number of physical resources can be more equitably allocated? Finally, if the customer being denied access to WiFi is at Central, they could be told that if they go out onto the Civic Green they are likely to be able to connect to the separate free WiFi system at the Civic Center, which is unlikely to suffer from the license shortage that the Library does. November Comment No. 2 & 3: The handicapped spaces in the Civic Center parking structure closest to the Library’s second floor entrance, that were recently converted to Electric Vehicle charging stations, definitely need better signage. My observation (as that of commenter #3) is that as handicapped spaces (which they still, apparently are) they were in nearly constant use. As EV stations, they nearly always stand vacant, inconveniencing the Library’s many handicapped patrons seeking access to the second floor -- unaware they continue to have a right to use those spaces just as before, independent of whether they have an EV or are charging it (the initial signage implied that although designed to be accessible to handicapped persons, even they would be cited if not actively charging an EV). January 16, 2018, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 2 of 5 This question was raised (by me), incidentally, at the December 6, 2017, Building and Fire Board of Appeals meeting (the body that adjudicates ADA complaints). City staff seemed unaware of the rules or the potential problem they had created by seemingly eliminating the Library’s “best” handicapped spaces, but one of the Board members, who has a handicapped placard, knew (or believed he knew) the placard could be used to park a non-EV car at any EV slot (“accessible” or not), as well as to ignore time restrictions (as are found in some of the library parking lots). Item 3. Library Activities In response to the Director’s comments about the Star Library rating, do we have details of what programming was reported by the three peer libraries, and by our own? Likewise, what do we report for public internet use? Is it just library-owned devices? Or does it include those private devices connected through the library’s WiFi? Also, is database access (which would include from at-home users) included in the Star Library ratings, and if so, how does NBPL fare compared to its peers? The Director’s new list (handwritten pages 17-18) of upcoming events of potential relevance to the BLT is very helpful. In the first paragraph of the Library Services Manager’s report (handwritten page 18), I am left guessing what “Library Bingo programs” are. In the first paragraph on handwritten page 19, I am likewise left wondering what “PIC” stands for? In the second paragraph, was “Tiles” meant to be “Titles”? Item 4. Expenditure Status Report It would seem helpful for this to be accompanied by a little narrative highlighting any expenditures that deviate from expectations, or other matters that should be brought to the Board’s attention. The Trustees may again wish to explore the City’s new Open Budget Portal, which gives greater line item detail (and by branch), although (as Melissa points out) significantly delayed (currently, the operating budget data uploaded on December 20 appears to say it represents expenditures through October 31, 2017). Item 5. Board of Library Trustees Monitoring List One hopes the CdM Branch won’t be open for the scheduled June 18, 2018, branch update – but it could be… The Monitoring List seems to be missing plans for November and December. I think it would be good to add to the Monitoring List a list all the Library Policies the Board controls and the dates they were last reviewed. January 16, 2018, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 3 of 5 Item 7. Newport Beach Public Library eBranch and Database Review Staff may wish to discuss its understanding of the copyright issues related to material obtained by customers from the Library’s subscription database services. Customers can, obviously, share links to where they found the information. To what extent can they share and reproduce the actual information downloaded (such as PDF’s of newspaper or magazine articles)? Regarding the Library’s digitization of its microfilm collection of past issues of local newspapers, this is a very commendable effort to preserve local history, and much more convenient than trying to operate the microfilm reader. However, the legibility of some of the digital copy is marginal. Is the Library committed to retaining the microfilms under those issues can be sorted out? I’m also not sure the Laserfiche format is being used to its full capability, in which it should be possible to access and display individual pages (and thumbnails) of them, rather than as a single large PDF of the whole issue. As used elsewhere in the City’s Document Center, the full PDF is usually generated only on demand. To make this effort more widely known and available, it would seem wise for the Library to seek a link in the University of California’s Online Archive of California where many other local libraries are listed as both having and providing online access to special collections. See, for example, the OAC listing for the Santa Monica Public Library’s very similar (in purpose) archive of their newspaper of record, the Evening Outlook, for 1875-1936 (which, although a major effort, appears to be searchable – greatly enhancing the archive’s value). In this vein of making local history materials available to a wider audience, in addition to getting its online and off-line special collections listed in the OAC, has the Library considering contacting an organization like the Internet Archive to have the (sometimes old and rare) books in its currently locked-case Local History collection at Central (and possibly public domain titles in its Nautical Collection, if there are any) professionally digitized and made available for worldwide access in the Open Library? Speaking of eBooks, I think the Hathi Trust would be a good resource to add to the NBPL eBranch’s list of Public Domain eBooks, and could, conceivably, even be interested in something as specialized as our local history collections. Oddly, they are not listed on the private site which currently comes up as the top result in a Google Search for “public domain ebook resources,” yet they do provide access to many books which I’m not sure are offered on the other sites. January 16, 2018, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 4 of 5 Item 8. Luck[y] Day Collection As the staff report indicates, this has apparently proved a popular program in other cities. I do not agree with staff’s suggestion that the catalog listing of the lucky day books should be suppressed. On the contrary, it would seem to me the public would very much want to know the Library owns copies of a book they are interested in, but rather than being in the normal check- out/hold system, the copy is in the “lucky day” collection – and also, to the extent it doesn’t defeat the concept, what it’s status is (out, on shelf and where). I would also suggest the fine for “lucky day” books should be substantially higher than for normal books, so as to encourage patrons to actually read and return them in the intended seven days (see this example of $0.50 per day for lucky day books versus $0.05 per day for normal books). I would also suggest they not be attached to any particular branch, but put back on the shelf at whatever facility they are returned to. Unless the catalog record is visible, and assigns it to a particular branch, that would not only speed things up and add to the serendipity. Item 9. Circulation Policy Review Although this item was continued from the previous meeting, in view of the previous item it seems curious the Board would go ahead and adopt the revisions discussed then (including about the Rental Books program), when staff is recommending substantial additional changes be made at once to transition from rental to Lucky Day collections. If the Board wants implement the Lucky Day idea, it would seem to me they should discuss the changes that will require to the Circulation Policy, and continue that to the next meeting so all the changes can be made at a single time. Item 10. Closure of Central Library and Mariners Branch Library for re- carpeting The staff report details the extra cost of avoiding closures by doing the work at night, but as best I can it does not reveal the basic cost of the effort, which I would think would be of interest to the Board. That said, I am a frequent user of the Mariners Branch and am not aware the carpet there is in need of replacement. It looks quite well maintained to me – certainly adequate for its purpose. I would therefore suggest the library budget be used on more pressing things – but then my personal housekeeping standards may be lower than most people’s. January 16, 2018, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 5 of 5 Item 11. Corona del Mar Branch Project Update As the staff eport indicates, the possible award of a contract on February 27 is listed as the last item on the tentative agenda for that date that was distributed at the City Council meeting on January 9. Based on the experiences of other local agencies, the Board should brace itself for the possibility that the bids will come in much higher than they were in the first attempt over a year ago (Item 17 at the City Council’s December 13, 2016, meeting, officially, rejected for being over staff’s estimate). Rather troublingly, the long delay that could cause that unfortunate and potentially costly outcome seems to have been the result of some subset of the City Council negotiating with staff over a possible alternative, more easterly, location for the fire station (and possibly the library?) without any public discussion or knowledge of what they were doing or why. Item VII. Public Comments on Non-Agenda Items The Board may wish to know that at its January 9, 2018, meeting, the City Council continued consent calendar Item 7, which was a request to renew and extend the City’s contract with Robert’s Waste & Recycling for collecting trash from non-dumpster type containers at City facilities including the Mariners Branch Library (location 59), where Robert’s is supposed to empty 5 containers, five times a week during the summer and three times a week the rest of the year. Part of the reason for the continuance (in addition to the substantial increase in cost) involved questions about the quality of the service currently being provided. In the discussion, the service was described as one of removing and replacing liner-filled trash cans, and the Municipal Operations Director suggested Robert’s deserved an overall grade of “B” for their work. As I testified, the level of service provided at Mariners seems substantially lower than that. There are only 3 containers, not 5 (whose responsibility it is to provide the containers was not clear), and they have no liners. Instead, they are frequently overflowing with bags left by the cleaning crews, and other loose trash, and, after dumping the bags, the accumulating and aging debris at the bottom is rarely, if ever, removed. Robert’s also appears to only erratically pick up the larger items (such as cardboard and boxes) left outside the containers, and is distinctly non-diligent about sweeping up the scattered overflow (which they mostly seem to ignore). I’m not sure how trash is picked up at other branches, but it might be helpful to the Council if library staff could provide feedback on whether they find the current service at Mariners satisfactory or not – and in particular, how it could be improved. Those ideas could become welcome deal points in the new contract.