The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2018-07-16 JM CommentsJuly 16, 2018, BLT Agenda Item Comments These comments on Newport Beach Board of Library Trustees (BLT) agenda items are submitted by: Jim Mosher (jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 1. Minutes of the June 18, 2018 Board of Library Trustees Meeting Page 3, first sentence of first full paragraph: “Library Services Director Hetherton obtained noise measurements at the reference desk, children's room, and circulation in the Central Library.” [It was my understanding the measurements reported had been taken recently at the Central Library. Without this clarification, the context would imply they were taken at the Corona del Mar Branch before it closed.] Item 2. Customer Comments Just two comments received for the month seems remarkably few. I find the response to comment #1 a bit puzzling. It seems to interpret the comment as a request to close the Media Lab for private use by an outside instructor. I read it as nothing more than asking if it’s OK to talk to a few youngsters who may be experimenting with the video editing software during the lab’s normal hours while other patrons are working. I would have thought the response would have been they’re welcome to use the facility, but the availability of work stations can’t be guaranteed. Item 3. Library Activities It would seem good for the Board to see an updated organization chart illustrating more graphically the Director’s vision for the post-Melissa Kelly job titles and responsibilities. Item 4. Expenditure Status Report I take it “July, 2017 through June, 2018” means this is the report for the full fiscal year (that is, including June, not just up to June). If so, it would be good to know how much of the $396,775 surplus will be going back to the general fund, and also if other departments ended the year with similar unspent percentages. Although only about 5% of the operating budget, this is still nearly as large as the donations from the Foundation and the Friends, combined. Item 7. Statistical Comparison Report of Peer Libraries/Meeting Spaces The footnotes at the bottom of the first table are helpful, especially the one to the data file from which the numbers were extracted. A link to the California State Library’s statistics home page might have been even more helpful, since one can find there the Instructions for the 2017 survey (which help to clarify the information July 16, 2018, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 2 of 3 collected) as well as a link to the California Library Statistics Portal where the results from that and earlier surveys are reported (the present report apparently being based on the “2016-2017 Summary Data”). The latter data report particularly puzzles me because although the instructions indicate question 803 asked for “The total annual circulation of ALL physical library materials of all types, including renewals,” I cannot find Total Circulation reported in the Summary Data, and in the footnotes/explanation it says only “Total Circulation (Retired 2015).” All I can find are the reports for circulation of specialized collections, such as Children's Materials, Non-English Materials and Electronic Materials (questions 804, 805 and 807 in the 2017 survey) – from which total circulation cannot be computed. Where and how does one now find the total circulation for the reporting libraries? Setting that problem aside, there seem to be some transcription errors in the tables shown in the staff report. For example, the amount Mission Viejo spent on “Print Materials” is shown as being greater than its total “Collection Expenditures.” From the CSL Summary Data file linked to in the second footnote to the table, the correct number for their Print Material Expenditures for 2016- 2017 was $186,529 (which seems to be the number reported in our table for Mountain View). The online and excel versions of the CLS Summary Data table is, incidentally, quite useful in that one can sort by county and see just the eleven Orange County libraries side by side. In that comparison, I’m not sure the Orange County Public Library is fairly represented since I’m not sure what the population figure given represents. Regarding the “COMPARISON WITH PEER LJ STAR LIBRARIES, 2017” table on handwritten page 25 (which does seem to provide a total circulation statistic), that seems to be based on data from an earlier year (since it doesn’t match the CSL 2016-2017 Summary Data), but I’m not sure which year since the link to the data source no longer seems to work (Library Journal having apparently rearranged its website). Although the present report is about statistics rather than ratings, I would have liked a clearer and more detailed explanation of exactly how Library Journal’s stars are assigned. Wikipedia has an interesting, if (it would appear) somewhat dated, article on Public library ratings, highlighting that any comparison or rating system is going to be controversial. I share the concern that library administrators (including library boards) may be tempted to direct resources to achieve some externally-imposed and quite arbitrary goal that may not reflect the local community’s priorities. I am also concerned that systems like the Library Journal’s stars recognize only the organizations its authors rate as the “top performers,” meaning only a very few can attain the top, five star status. I would think a system of performance goals under which all institutions have a theoretical chance of attaining the very top level through administrative improvements would be a much better one. July 16, 2018, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 3 of 3 Item 10. Newport Beach Public Library Collection Development Policy In past years, I have commented extensively on collection development policies from other US libraries which differ considerably from ours. Since that has led to nothing, I will concentrate on staff’s recommendations. Regarding universal borrowing, the present and proposed policies refer correctly, but somewhat confusingly, to a passage in the California Library Services Act, which might be more clearly referenced as California Education Code Section 18731. However it is referenced, its relevance to collection development is unclear. Is the Board saying in this policy that NBPL staff should not add items to our collections that be checked out from other California libraries? It seems more an augmentation to the Library’s Circulation Policy, and even as that, I’m not sure it’s accurate. The sentence in Education Code Section 18731 preceding the one that is quoted says: “A California public library may participate in universal borrowing.” In other words, participation appears to be voluntary. Thus, contrary to what our Collection Development Policy says, NBPL’s participation in the program means others can borrow from NBPL, not that Newport Beach residents (or NBPL card holders) can borrow from other California libraries (unless those libraries themselves happen to participate in universal borrowing). In addition, even as a circulation policy, the proposed language does not make clear what “universal borrowing” (defined in Educ. Code Sec. 18710(q)) means in terms of whether “direct access” means NBPL will retrieve the materials for you, you have to go to the other library in person, you have to pay for a card at the other location, or what. Some of those details are, incidentally, spelled out in the California Code of Regulations excerpts found starting on page 29 of the California State Library’s collection of 2017 Library Laws. Regarding Freedom to Read Statement, I previously thought it should be included at most as a link, but on reflection it seems directed at those submitting a "Customer’s Request for Evaluation" (requesting materials be removed from the collection) so perhaps it should be part of the policy given to them. I fear, though, they may take its rather strident language (which seems to date from the McCarthy era) as a personal rebuke – which I don’t think is its present intent.