Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-09-17 JM CommentsSeptember 17, 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 August 20, 2018 Board of Library Trustees Meeting 1. I continue to think the minutes should go back to referring to the persons appointed to the BLT who lack other titles (such as Chair, Vice Chair or Secretary) as “Trustee” rather than “Board member.” It might be noted the library in Newport Beach was created by a body (now called a “City Council”) calling itself, at that time, a Board of Trustees, and that in their minutes the elected members referred to themselves as “Trustees” rather than “Board members” (see, for example, the “city council” minutes from May 3, 1920, the day the ordinance that brought into existence the municipal library [and Library Board] was introduced). 2. On Page 5 (handwritten 8), Item 16 says: “Library Services Director Hetherton related that International Literacy Day is September 14.” This could be what was said, but if so, it may be incorrect. While other sources suggest the “correct” date for International Literacy Day is September 8, the Library’s online calendar indicates Literacy Day was observed in Newport Beach, this year, on Thursday, September 13. Item 2. Customer Comments Comment 6 (handwritten page 11), about the tables around the Central Library’s second floor entry, is intriguing. I would be curious to know whether either the Trustees or the library staff agree with the commenter’s assumption that those tables are intended primarily for Bistro 24’s paying customers and should be thought of as part of their food service. Does Bistro 24 own or maintain them? Item 3. Library Activities The “Admin Retreat” paragraph of Director Hetherton’s usually lucid activities report leaves me wondering if one of the two “October”’s might be a misprint. Is the BLT expected to review a new management initiative at its October 15 meeting, which will then be communicated to the retreat participants on October 30? Or will the October 30 retreat participants formulate an initiative that will be presented to the BLT in a later month? Item 4. Expenditure Status Report It might involve turning the paper sideways to make room for more columns, but it would seem helpful if the report indicated for each line item either the percent of the current year’s budget spent to date, or the ratio of the amount spent to the amount spent in the previous budget year. September 17, 2018, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 2 of 5 Item 5. Board of Library Trustees Monitoring List Some of the dates look wrong in the policies section. For example, “Library Meeting Rooms Policy (Council Policy I-7)” has a “Scheduled Agenda Date” of “Jul 16, 2018.” It is actually scheduled for the present meeting. Likewise, the “Expressive Use Areas” policy (NBPL 9) is listed as scheduled for “Aug 20, 2018.” It is also on the present agenda. Item 6. Literacy Program Update There was a presentation about “Literacy Awareness Day” as Item SS2 at the August 14, 2018, City Council meeting. In the draft minutes there was some confusion (hopefully corrected in the approved version) as to whether the Career Online High School program is part of the ProLiteracy program (and whether ProLiteracy is one word or two, as in the current agenda). On the NBPL website, COHS is listed under “Services,” separate from ProLiteracy, which appears only, somewhat confusingly, under “About.” Item 7. Study Room Policy Review 1. Although the staff report recommends “no changes,” at a minimum the verbiage at the end is being updated to reflect the present review. 2. I think that verbiage could be usefully condensed to “This policy will be reviewed by the Board of Library Trustees at least every two years. Last reviewed on September 17, 2018.” 3. If this is indeed now “NBPL 13,” it would seem that designation should appear somewhere on it. 4. Regarding the policy, I would suggest these changes: a. Paragraph 1: “These There are three (3) study rooms are available at the Central Library for groups of 2-5 people, depending on the size and requirements of each specific room.” [reason: with no words before, it is unclear what “these” refers to.] b. Paragraph 2, sentence 2: “Groups must request a use of a study room in person at the Reference Desk on the second floor of the Central Library.” [“a use” may well be intended, but for me “a” makes reading awkward while adding nothing to the meaning] c. Paragraph 3, last sentence: “Groups must go to the reference desk before their scheduled session.” [It is not entirely clear to me what this is intended to mean. The whole group must go? Or one person? And for what purpose? To obtain the key? Or is this only to request a time extension?] d. Paragraph 4, sentence 3: “The Two or more members of the group scheduling use of the study room must be present during the period of usage.” [??, or is this trying to say September 17, 2018, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 3 of 5 the cardholder to whom the room is “checked out” must be present? If so, I think it should say so.] Item 8. Expressive Use Areas Policy Review The current policy was not attached to the staff report, nor do I have access to the Trustee’s binder (see Item VII comment, below), so I am going by the online version. Given the strong protections of free speech in both the US and California Constitutions, I would guess NBPL’s authority to regulate free speech on public property, whatever its adopted policies may say, is itself very limited. In particular, given Sections 2(a) and 3(a) of the California Constitution, I find it extremely improbable NBPL could successfully prosecute anyone for violating this policy if they were not blocking ingress or egress or otherwise creating a disturbance. I have these specific comments about what the policy currently says: 1. In the first clause 2 (“To maintain City Libraries and library grounds…”), the commas are misplaced. 2. The second clause 1 (“All persons desiring to use the Expressive Activity Area shall report to the Library Services Director or designee prior to use”) is a poor one: the public is not likely to know who the designees are, and (from my experience) it is unclear even staff knows, especially on weekends. It is also unclear what the purpose of the reporting is, if the Director does not have the authority to deny use. I believe reporting should be recommended, but not required – especially for people who have read the policy. 3. The purpose of the “Expressive Use Area locations” links at the top of the online version is not immediately obvious or clearly tied to the “Exhibits” called out in the second clause 2. I would suggest the links be moved there, and more clearly labeled: Exhibit “A”: Central Library lower level Exhibit “A2”: Central Library upper level … 4. To tie in to their identification in the second clause 2: a. The Mariners exhibit graphic should be labeled B. b. The Balboa exhibit should be labeled C. c. The proposed Corona del Mar exhibit should be labeled D. In addition, the yellow highlighting should also be removed and dimensions added to the black square. 5. In the second clause 3, the redundant “number plus parenthetical numerals” syntax (such as “one (1) chair”) adds nothing to comprehension, and, in my view, should be eliminated throughout the policy. September 17, 2018, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 4 of 5 6. Since the exhibits delineate the dimensions of the areas, the limitations on size and quantity of furniture that can be placed in those areas seem unnecessary. In particular, the limitation to one chair seems unnecessarily burdensome when, for example, two elderly people may wish to “man” a table. Given the likely need for leniency, I don’t think it’s wise to declare rules the City doesn’t intend to enforce (or to enforce uniformly). 7. In the second clause 5, I’m not aware of any “public telephones” requiring access outside any of the library branches. 8. In clause 6, I am unable to guess the reason for the “(s)” in “person(s).” If there was a reason for it, should it be “customer(s)” too? 9. Clause 8 seems unrelated to an “Expressive Use Areas” policy. It seems more an internal administrative policy than a public policy. Whatever policy it belongs in, was this written to apply to all branches? Or only the Central Library? If the later, are there different banner requirements at the branches? If the same policy is intended for all facilities, it should read “Banners may be hung on the library façades …” More generally, I think the policy is overly restrictive. For example, in rainy weather there should be enough flexibility to move the expressive activity to a sheltered area on the library grounds. The inflexible prohibition on umbrellas in the second clause 3 is similarly nonsensical -- and in apparent denial of both rain and global warming/intense sunshine. Requiring signature gatherers to stand uncovered in the rain is particularly inconvenient both for the petitioners and for those wanting to sign an unnecessarily soggy document – effectively, and I would guess impermissibly, prohibiting constitutionally protected activity on public property. Item 10. Library Journal Three Star Libraries Comparison I agree with staff’s overall conclusion that “NBPL resides firmly in the middle of the pack,” other than in “Library Visits,” where it is a strong outlier on the high side. But there is clearly some error in the calculation of means and standard deviations on page 2 (handwritten 32). For example, “10.88” can’t possibly be the correct average circulation, since 11 of the 12 three- star libraries have circulation above 10.88, and only one is below the “mean,” and that by only a small amount (10.3258). Similarly for the other measures which, other than for “Public Internet Computer Use,” have only 1 or 2 libraries below the purported mean. According to my copy of Excel, the average circulation of the 12 libraries, as an example, is closer to 20.0 and the standard deviation to 4.9. Regarding “Public Internet Computer Use,” do we know if the Library Journal is tracking hours of use or “sessions”? The staff report indicates, the Library Journal says it uses IMLS data, and the 2015 version of the IMLS Public Libraries in the United States Survey suggests it is September 17, 2018, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 5 of 5 sessions they report (not counting WiFi sessions), not hours (see also page F-76 of the Data File Documentation for that survey). In my observation, the public terminals (and laptops) at NBPL are very well and heavily used. In part because NBPL, with its CASSIE reservation system, has an enlightened policy whereby sessions are extended indefinitely as long as there is not a waiting list. At other municipal libraries I know of, patrons are restricted to a single limited-time session per day. At some, once they log off, if even after a minute, they are done for the day. At others, once they have used their hour, they are done for the day. Their public terminals may thus show a similar number of sessions, but they sit frustratingly (and pointlessly) idle most of the day. If each automatic 20-minute extension at NBPL was counted as a “use” we might rate a lot higher. Item VII. Public Comments on Non-Agenda Items 1. The various library reference desks have copies of the City Council policy binders. They don’t yet seem to have copies of the Library Policy binders provided to the Trustees. I think they should. 2. In looking for the Literacy and COHS programs on the NBPL website (see comments on Item 6, above), I noticed that part of what appears to be the library’s mission statement (embodied in a former version of “City Council” Policy I-1, but no longer in it) appears at the top of the “About” page and part (plus some words never found in that policy) at the top of the “Library Policies” page. In short, NBPL no longer appears to have anything that can pointed to as a clear, complete and definitive mission statement approved by the Trustees (as it briefly had). 3. The NBPD website continues to be inaccessible from the NBPL computers. It is unclear why the public information on that site should be blocked from the public.