Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-08-20 JM CommentsAugust 20, 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 July 16, 2018 Board of Library Trustees Meeting General notes: 1. With the exception of the last paragraph of Item 14 and the first paragraph of Item IX, these minutes generally refer to the BLT as the “Library Board of Trustees” rather than the “Board of Library Trustees.” I am uncertain what the motivation for this new innovation (new to these minutes) might be, but if the Trustees themselves don’t want it, I think it would be less confusing to stick with “Board of Library Trustees.” 2. For reasons also not understood by me, the non-officer trustees are consistently referred to as “board members” rather than “trustees” – as in “Board member Johnson- Tucker” and “Board Member Kost” rather than “Trustee Johnson-Tucker” or “Trustee Kost.” This innovation seems to have crept into the minutes starting in 2016. “Trustee” seems the more appropriate title to me. It is also more concise. Specific errors: Page 3 (handwritten 6), Item 7, last paragraph: “Jim Mosher suggested a virtual visit to the Cerritos library or inviting a member of Cerritos' staff to a meeting. He concurred that staff and Board Members should not be concerned with the star rating and encouraged Board Members to review all the data reported by the California State Library Journal.” [My comment was that the annual spreadsheets posted by the CSL contain vast amounts of comparative data not reported by the Library Journal. For almost any topic the trustees might be interested in, a comparison of how NBPL compares with other libraries in that category could be found in them. And, again, I likely said “Trustees” rather than “Board Members,” but I don’t recall.] Page 4 (handwritten 7), Item 8, paragraph 1, last sentence: “Based on a labor agreement, all locations will close at 1:00 p.m. on December 24 and 29 31.” Item 3. Library Activities Tim has an endearing habit of beginning his reports with a thought-provoking quote, often from people I have never heard of. I notice the present author, R. David Lankes, Director of the University of South Carolina’s School of Library and Information Science, has a 2012 on-line book he calls Atlas of New Librarianship as well as a more recent Expect More: Demanding Better Libraries For Today’s Complex World (also available for free) which appear to discuss his ideas about the future of libraries from the perspective of his training as an “information technologist” rather than a “librarian.” I personally find Dr. Lankes’ style of presentation too diffuse to grasp in a short time, but he does seem to be an uninhibited thought provoker. I would be curious to know if NBPL staff has gleaned anything of value from his writings? August 20, 2018, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 Item 4. Expenditure Status Report The year-end report for FY2017-2018 would have benefitted from a narrative highlighting any items staff views with pride or regret. If all the bills are paid, it looks like staff did a truly remarkable job of spending 99.5% of its maintenance and operations allocation without going over the Council-approved amount. In connection with budgets, Newport Beach’s new City Manager comes from a city (Sunnyvale, California) which (at least until recently?) prided itself on “performance based budgeting,” in which a department’s budget for the coming year is determined, in part, by whether or not it met quantitative performance goals set for the preceding year (rather than simply continuing the historic dollar amounts with a small inflation correction). It is unclear if that management philosophy will be coming to Newport Beach, or how it might affect the library (in a library context, a goal might be increasing circulation, reducing staffing in some area, or something of that sort). Item 5. Board of Library Trustees Monitoring List Policy Items I-3 and I-7 are listed as being scheduled for review at the July 2018 meeting. To the extent the review as completed, that date should be moved to the “Last Reviewed” column. To the extent it was not, the new meeting date should be substituted. Item 6. Appeal to Board of Library Trustees I take it this is an appeal, pursuant to the Board’s NBPL Use Policy, of the Director’s upholding of staff’s suspension of a library patron, rather than an employee? This is an unusual item, as I don’t recall an appeal being heard by the Trustees in the last nine years. Especially as such, it would have been helpful to provide a copy of the written notice detailing the violations that resulted in the suspension. Item 9. Board of Library Trustees Policy Review I agree with the renumbering of the policies, and am pleased to see (for the first time) the governing documents of the Friends and Foundation. The language recommended to appear at the end of each Board Policy seems a bit stuffy and over-legalistic to me. Instead of: “This Policy will be periodically reviewed by the Board of Library Trustees on the first to occur of (i) as circumstances may require or (ii) every two years from the date of adoption, last amendment, or last review. Last reviewed by the Board of Library Trustees on _____, 20__,” August 20, 2018, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 I would suggest: “The Board of Library Trustees will review this Policy for possible amendment at least every two years. It was last reviewed by the Board on _____, 20__.” Below that, I would keep a running list of the amendment dates, as the Council does with its policies. Regarding “ATTACHMENT A: Memorandum of Understanding Relating to the Shared Governance of the Newport Beach Library Director”:  I don’t think the annual performance reviews of the City Librarian, or the twice-monthly comparison of notes with the City Manager have been taking place.  Those meetings could be held in open or closed session at the discretion of the Board, but they would have to be noticed to give the public (including staff) an opportunity to provide input – and I have never seen any such notices. Regarding “ATTACHMENT B: Cooperating Agreement between the Newport Beach Public Library Board of Library Trustees and the Newport Beach Public Library Foundation”:  At 53 pages, this is by far the most lengthy document in the proposed Policies Binder, and it appears to be in its entirety a City staff report to the Council from January 25, 2000.  Since by-laws (and even articles of incorporation) can be, and are, amended, is this information still current? That is, have the by-laws been still further amended in the last 18 years?  As indicated in the staff report, the Cooperating Agreement had not been agreed to by the Foundation. Did that ever happen?  Handwritten pages 71-85 are Arts Foundation documents, which, while interesting, are of questionable relevance to the BLT (they do not seem to mention “library”).  I find it interesting the 2000 NBPLF Articles of Incorporation say nothing about it acting as an independent cultural program providing organization. Indeed, Article II.B says “The specific [and one would assume ONLY] purpose of this corporation is to engage in the solicitation, receipt, and administration of monies and other property, and from time to time to disburse such monies and/or property and the income therefrom, solely to or for the benefit of the City of Newport Beach Public Library, its branches, and its related activities and services.” In other words, it is supposed to function solely as a conduit for donations to the library.  I also find it interesting that the by-laws allow the NBPLF to solicit “memberships” even though the members are not legally members. August 20, 2018, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4 Regarding “ATTACHMENT C: Articles of Incorporation of Friends of the Newport Beach Public Library”:  Again, it would be interesting to know if the Friends documents are still current.  If they are, then it is interesting to note that the Friends saw themselves in much more nearly the way the Foundation now views itself, including educational programming and acting as a conduit for financial donations and trusts (paragraphs around the circled one on handwritten page 89) – functions that seems to have since been usurped by the Foundation. Regarding “ATTACHMENT G: NBPL-3, Library Gift and Donor Policy [redlined]”:  I appreciate the incorporation of one policy into another on handwritten page 107. o I do wonder what “All donations of gifts and property” was intended to mean. o Since the following seems to deal exclusively with what to do with donated physical property, would it not be better to leave out “of gifts” and just say “All donations of property”?  I am baffled by the offer of “rifled "Memorials" recognizing gifts of $1,000 or more made in memory of an individual” in paragraph “B” on handwritten page 106. When this was Council Policy I-4, that read “titled”. Although change is often welcome, and sometimes necessary, I’m not convinced the change to “rifled” is an improvement.  The layout following that paragraph “C” was also quite different when this was a Council Policy, with lettered paragraphs “D” through “G” that are now mushed together as a kind of formless narrative. Again, I’m not sure that’s an improvement.  I also thought there was a recent policy that the Director could accept gifts below a certain dollar amount without specific Board approval. I don’t know if that’s consistent with the Board’s Charter duties, but I don’t see it here. Item 10. Collection Development Policy I thought the Board’s direction at its last meeting was to provide active links to the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights and The Freedom to Read Statement documents. It is not obvious from the report if staff intends to hyperlink these words, or merely mention the titles and leave patrons to find them on their own. As written, the policy also says that persons asking for a book to be removed from the collection will be given both the "Customer’s Request for Evaluation of Library Resources" form and a copy of this policy. Will that copy include the Library Bill of Rights and The Freedom to Read Statement? I would think the inclusion of those documents would be important for the requestor to better understand Library staff’s reluctance to remove items. Unrelated to this, I continue to think the “universal borrowing” paragraph does not adequately describe Newport Beach residents’ use and borrowing rights when physically in other jurisdictions, or exactly what privileges they have for remote access through interlibrary loan.