Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-03-18 JM CommentsMarch 18, 2019, BLT Agenda 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 February 19, 2019 Board of Library Trustees Meeting Page 2 (handwritten 5), Item 6, end of paragraph 1: “Staff does not anticipate adding or removing any positions, but increases due to bargaining agreements and raises will balance be balanced out by cost savings from staff leaving Library employment. Staff requested $35,000 in addition to the $100,000 budgeted for the Sculpture Garden Phase V and funding for a new self- checkout machine. The Finance Department has corrected the Literacy Internal Service Fund.” [The first of these sentences makes it appear that to maintain a constant dollar budget, the library plans to accommodate salary increases by reducing staffing. That does not sound like a particularly good long-range strategy to me. Carried to its logical extreme, the library will eventually have a single employee at the same dollar cost as all the present employees. The middle sentence seems to be contradicted by the statement in the next paragraph that “The $35,000 is not an additional appropriation.” What the last of these sentences is intended to mean escapes me. I have no idea what was “corrected.”] Page 3 (handwritten 6), second motion: The possibility that the Board was going to discuss or take action on altering the next meeting time and location was not listed on the agenda. Page 3 (handwritten 6), Item 7, paragraph 1: “Library Services Director Hetherton reported Council Policy I-7 was last revised in 2006.” Page 4 (handwritten 7), end of first full paragraph: “General requirements for the use of the Friends Room currently prohibit alcohol; however, Speak Up Newport utilizes the room monthly and serves alcohol.” [Speak Up Newport uses the Civic Center Community Room. Wake Up! Newport uses the Friends Room. Since I don’t recall Wake Up! Newport serving alcohol, I would guess the comment referred to SUN’s use of the Community Room, although I believe other organizations use the Friends Room and serve alcohol in it. In any event, the current policy does not prohibit alcohol service. Instead, it requires written approval. Additional regulations regarding alcohol in City facilities can be found in Council Policy B-13.] Page 4 (handwritten 7), Item 8, paragraph 2: “Chair Ray noted This this policy was last revised in 2015 and noted by Chair Ray.” Page 5 (handwritten 8), line 2: “The grand opening of Phase V IV of the Sculpture Exhibition in Civic Center Park will be June 22, 2019.” Page 6 (handwritten 9), last paragraph before “B”: “Vice Chair Watkins noted the Wheelhouse List does not include the ProLiteracy luncheon on April 5, and which is sold out.” March 18, 2019, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 2 of 10 Item 2. Customer Comments Comment 3: Based on this comment, it sounds like the demand for some of the Tech Toys exceeds the supply (the requester being #9 and #28 on hold lists). In “upgrading” to newer models, did the library discard the old ones? It would have seemed useful to have retained them to fill the backlog of requests from customers who might have been satisfied with them. Comment 11: I believe ProQuest provides text without the images and ads, so it isn’t quite the same as seeing the printed newspapers. Item 3. Library Activities Handwritten page 16: “The City is currently working with the Library and IT’s preferred ILS vendor to draw up a contract, which will go to City Council for approval in the near future.” How is the BLT involved in this? Surely, before taking action on this staff request the City Council will need a recommendation from the Board. Handwritten page 16: “Our subscription to Collection HQ is now live and the selectors have been attending training sessions on how to best use Collection HQ to evaluate the collection and better serve the community’s needs.” Improved public participation in collection development and retention has long been a concern of mine, but I have no idea what “Collection HQ” is, and I do not recall hearing anything about it in the most recent presentations, on July 16 and August 20, about the library’s Collection Development Policy. Item 4. Expenditure Status Report Assuming this report reflects expenditures through the beginning of March, the library will have completed 8 months of the fiscal year and have 4 months to go. In other words, in this report the library is 2/3rds of the way through the year, and one might expect 2/3rds of the budget to be spent. Understanding not all expenses occur evenly throughout the year, it still would have been helpful to highlight the line items in which the Year-To-Date expenditures are significantly more or less than two-thirds of the Revised Budget. Also, should the Board be seeing an update on revenues as well as expenditures? For example, in connection with agenda Item 7, how much revenue has the library received from rental of meeting space? Item 5. Board of Library Trustees Monitoring List The Monitoring List shows several Agenda Items scheduled for the present meeting (“Annual Budget – Approval,” “Assign a Lecture Hall Capital Campaign Committee” and “Review of San Diego Library's Proposed Library Fines Policy”) that do not appear to be on the agenda. March 18, 2019, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 3 of 10 Item 6. Review of the Library Meeting Rooms Policy (Council Policy I- 7) This policy may be understandable to library staff, but to a public reader it remains a confusing mess. Before going further with it, the Trustees may wish to familiarize themselves with the Council’s separate policies for use of the meeting rooms administered by the Recreation and Senior Services Department, namely Council Policy B-5 (“VINCENT JORGENSEN COMMUNITY ROOM IN LIBRARY” and Policy B-13 (“PUBLIC USE OF CITY FACILITIES”), as they provide a somewhat independent view of how City meeting rooms can be made available for public use. If, as the staff report suggests, the objective of the present revision is to ask the Council to declare this strictly a BLT policy, and if the BLT does not care who has jurisdiction over the Jorgensen Room, then it seems clear that the references to it in the “Background” paragraphs should be stricken so as to make it clear this is strictly a BLT policy dealing with library rooms. However, I continue to believe the Jorgensen Room has been misclassified, and its administration should fall under the BLT rather than the R&SS Department – an issue I raised in my written comments submitted in connection with the BLT’s February 19 meeting, but which the staff report avoids addressing. In particular, the documents approved by the City Council in 2002 in connection with the construction of the current Mariners Library, archived by the City Clerk under contract C- 3496(B) (Cooperative Agreement for Mariners Library Joint Use Project), the Jorgensen Room was designated as a 110-seat Community Meeting Room within the library facility, and the agreement made clear that per our City Charter, the entire facility would be “under the administrative control of the Board of Library Trustees, as defined in Section 708 of the City Charter” (Cooperative Agreement, page 3, Section 2.1; see also page 8, Section 4). The Agreement further says (page 8, Section 6) that pursuant to the Field Act, “the Community Meeting Room will serve as classrooms for the students, and for student groups of 24 or more during school hours” (the students being referred to presumably being those attending the Mariners Elementary School). Separate deed restrictions approved by the Council in 2008 (last pages at above link) further restrict the use of the entire 6.89 acre Mariners Park area (including the library and fire station sites) to library uses through 2046 and prohibit any other uses on the land without the state’s consent. All of this would seem to place the Jorgensen Room under the control of the BLT, rather than the Recreation and Senior Services Department. That said, Policy I-7, as proposed, is confusing for the following reasons: 1. Director Hetherton refers to this as the “policy for use of the Friends Room,” yet the title is “Library Meeting Rooms” and the “Background” paragraphs describe three rooms. 2. It provides no further guidance as to which parts of the policy apply to which of the three rooms, or to all. March 18, 2019, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 4 of 10 3. As an example, after telling us in the “Background” paragraphs that there are two departments involved, the “Procedure” seems to apply only to applications going through and being decided by the Library Services Department. 4. It provides no guidance for reserving the Charles Sword Room, even though the library website (Study/Meeting Rooms page) lists it as a meeting room that can be reserved for public use. Nor does the policy address the seemingly little-used Staff Conference Room at the Central Library, which the public might reasonably expect to be as available for use as the Conference Room (strangely, not mentioned at the preceding link). 5. It provides no guidance as to what furniture is allowed in the rooms and who is responsible for its set-up and removal. Recognizing it is a very incomplete and unsatisfactory policy, I have these specific comments: 1. If the BLT is relinquishing its interest in the Jorgensen Room, the opening sentence of paragraph 2 of “Background” should be revised to read something like: “The Jorgensen Room is administered by the Recreation and Senior Services Department and is not subject to the present policy. Its use is covered by City Council Policies B-5 and B-13. The Library Board of Trustees and the Library Services Department (Department) administer the Library and its meeting rooms Friends Room and the Conference Room.” a. This leaves me confused, as I believe the Jorgensen Room was intended for library activities subject only to the joint use agreement with the school district. b. The implication of the language suggested above is that it is not primarily a library facility, and if the library does want to use its community room for library activities, it needs to apply for use through RS&S. 2. I believe the sentence saying “The City has a shortage of large meeting space and City officers and employees frequently need to use the meeting rooms for City business on very short notice” was written before the City had the (new) OASIS, Civic Center or Marina Park, an is no longer valid. To be honest, I believe it should simply read “The City has a shortage of large meeting space and City officers and employees frequently may need to use the meeting rooms for City business on very short notice.” 3. The section entitled “Application” should read “Application Applicability” to avoid confusion with the application document and process. a. I believe the words “Library-sponsored” and “City-sponsored” should be hyphenated. b. Precisely what they are intended to mean is unclear to me, and needs to be better defined. c. Does it mean that for the policy to not apply, the City has to be the primary presenter and funder of the event, or merely an endorser of it? March 18, 2019, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 5 of 10 d. For example, if the City “sponsors” Wake Up! Newport by providing free meeting space, does the present policy not apply to that event? e. It would be good for the Board (and public) to know how many events per year don’t qualify as “City-sponsored” and hence incur the fees envisioned in the policy. 4. Under “Purpose”: a. “B. Priorities for the use of the Library meeting rooms to ensure its their availability to the City and its officers and employees and to resolve any conflict related to requests for use by others; and” b. “C. Standards and criteria for the use of the Library meeting rooms to ensure there is no conflict with the public’s use of the City Libraries and no significant to minimize impact on the workload of staff.” 5. Under “Standard Conditions to Use”: a. “B. Smoking is prohibited in the Library meeting rooms, and the entire Library facility, including restrooms and within one hundred feet (100’) of all entrances.” (for consistency with NBPL 1, see agenda Item 7) b. “C. At least one (1) adult shall be present in the Library meeting rooms when minors are in attendance.” (?? The staff report provides no explanation of why the previous condition requiring a minimum ratio of adults to children – 1 per 20 – is being abandoned. This does not seem like a good change. How many non- City-sponsored events for children [to which this policy would apply] occur in these rooms each year?) c. Staff likewise does not explain why it is recommending deletion of the parking requirement that is Condition E in the present policy. Isn’t parking still a concern and a possible reason for denial? d. If Condition E is removed, the following conditions need to be re-numbered (the “clean” copy goes from “D” to “F” with nothing in between – “F” should become “E”, and so on). e. “F. Meetings or activities conducted at in the Library meeting rooms that are not City or Library sponsored may not be advertised or promoted as City or Library sponsored activities. All materials used for advertising or announcing a meeting or activity to be conducted in a Library meeting room shall be submitted to the Library Services Director at least ten (10) days prior to the use of the materials for the sole purpose of determining if the material complies with this condition. The Library Services Director shall notify the permittee of his/her determination that the material complies or does not comply with the condition within two business days after submittal.” f. “G. Meetings or activities in the Friends Room shall not exceed 187 persons. Meetings or activities in the Conference Room shall not exceed ?? persons.” March 18, 2019, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 6 of 10 g. “H. The Library meeting rooms shall not be used for private social functions such as weddings, music rehearsals, etc. unless rehearsals are necessary as part of a Library or City sponsored public concert,or production which is scheduled to be performed in the Library meeting rooms.” (The deleted phrase is pointless since, by its own terms, nothing in this policy applies to “Library or City sponsored” events.) h. “I. Use of the Friends Room and Conference Room is limited to 9:15 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday and 9:15 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Friday through Saturday, unless expressly approved in writing by the Library Services Director.” (I believe this was written before the library was open on Sundays. It remains unclear to me why use of these rooms would be allowed on Saturdays but not on Sundays. It might also be noted that even if approved by the Director, use of the rooms outside of normal library hours creates certain security risks since the Central Library has no way to block access from these rooms to the remainder of the building) i. “L. Applications for reservations may be made no more than 90 days in advance and no more than once every 90 days.” (It is unclear to me if an “application” is intended to be limited to a request for a single reservation, thus prohibiting a group or individual from using a library room more often than once every 90 days. The comparable phrase in Council Policy B-5 (for the Jorgensen Room) is “E. Applications for reservations may be made no more than 90 days in advance and no more than once every 90 days. There can be no recurring reservations.” Library staff appears to have interpreted Policy I-7 as not including the latter condition, since (I believe) organizations like the Airport Working Group meet monthly in the Conference Room -- presumably based on a request which they have to resubmit every 90 days.) 6. Under “Priorities of Use”: a. B. SECOND PRIORITY: “4. Schools, colleges, hospitals or other similar civic groups not qualifying under the definition of non-profit. Non-profit status is defined as an organization that is so defined by the Internal Revenue Service Section 501C3 501(C)(3) and has a state of California Tax Identification Number.” i. I know that for tax reporting purposes non-profit organizations obtain an “Employer Identification Number” from the IRS. I was unaware they are issued a separate TIN to use on state tax returns. ii. Whatever the answer to that, the sentence defining non-profit status for non-resident organizations should be moved from Subsection 4 to Subsection 3, where the term “non-profit” first appears. March 18, 2019, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 7 of 10 The staff report also includes, as Attachments B, D and F, an “Application Process” document, in which extensive changes are requested to the parts quoting Policy I-7. 1. This document does not seem to be part of the currently posted policy on either the Library or City Clerk’s websites, and its previous status as a Board-approved document is unclear. It says it was “Approved by the Board of Library Trustees May 16, 2016,” but I can find nothing about it on the agenda from that date. 2. Based on the redline (Attachment D) and what was presented as Attachment B to Item 7 at the February 19 meeting, the document being provided as the current Attachment B (current version of “Application Process – Library Meeting Rooms”) is not actually the current version, but rather a duplicate of Attachment F (“Application Process – Library Meeting Rooms (final)”). I have these specific comments: 1. The February 19 staff report indicated this applies to the Friends Room, only. If that is the case, it should be so-titled (“APPLICATION PROCESS – CENTRAL LIBRARY FRIENDS MEETING ROOM”), and similar but separate application forms should be available for the other meeting rooms mentioned in Policy I-7 (currently the Jorgensen Room and the Central Library Conference Room). 2. Rather than repeating the “PRIORITIES OF USE,” I would refer to Policy I-7, or attach a copy of it. 3. However, further down page 1, under “APPLICATION PROCEDURE” it mentions submitting the form to the Recreation and Senior Services Department when requesting the Jorgensen Room, even though this doesn’t seem to be the form for doing so. a. It also says the Jorgensen Room is “available only after 5:00 p.m. weekdays.” b. That conflicts with City Council Policy B-5, which says “D. The Jorgensen Room is reserved 8:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday for children's programming. Evening and weekend hours may be available through the Recreation and Senior Services Department,” which suggests it is available after 6 p.m. on weekdays and all day on weekends. 4. The “MEETING ROOM FEES” schedule provided on page 2 appears to apply only to the Friends Room (and if so, should be so titled). a. The City Council does not appear to have established any fees for use of the Conference Room, and I have no idea what, if anything, library staff charges. b. According to the Council’s most recently adopted Master Fee Schedule, the fees charged by R&SS for use of the Jorgensen Room are: i. Cleaning Fee (?): $150.00 ii. Deposit (Under 75 People): $100.00 iii. Deposit (76 And More People): $150.00 iv. Commercial Resident Rate, Fee Per Hour 2 Hour Minimum: $144.00 March 18, 2019, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 8 of 10 v. Commercial Nonresident Rate, Fee Per Hour 2 Hour Minimum: $290.00 vi. Non-Profit Resident Rate, Fee Per Hour 2 Hour Minimum: $45.00 vii. Non-Profit Nonresident Rate, Fee Per Hour 2 Hour Minimum: $85.00 viii. Private Resident Rate, Fee Per Hour 2 Hour Minimum: $72.00 ix. Private Nonresident Rate, Fee Per Hour 2 Hour Minimum: $143.00 c. It might be noted that RS&S appears to contemplate possible “commercial” use of the Jorgensen Room. The distinction between “commercial” and “private” is not entirely clear to me. And although it is not a “priority” use, and no fee is set, it is unclear if Policy I-7 prohibits commercial use of the rooms described in it, if the charge to attendees covers only the cost of the event. It is also unclear if all non- City events have to be open to the public. 5. The section entitled “GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR USE OF FRIENDS ROOM” is helpful, but if this is the application form for the Conference Room and the Jorgensen Room, as well, sections giving the “GENERAL REQUIREMENTS” for them are needed, too. a. The “Provision of insurance as stated in City Council Policy I-7” section mentions a requirement for a “Worker’s Comp section completed if employees/volunteers of group attending meeting,” even though I can find nothing about that in Policy I- 7. b. “Copy of 501c3 and State of California Tax Identification Number.” See comment, above. In addition, I do not believe all groups given “priority” under Policy I-7 would be 501(C)(3)’s. So perhaps this should say “if applicable.” In particular, community groups given priority under B.2 in Policy I-7 do not appear to have to be 501(C)(3)’s. c. “All meetings in the Friends Room are open to the public.” I applaud this requirement. But it is stated more clearly on the application than in the policy. 6. If nothing else, the revision date at the end of Attachment F should be updated from “February 19, 2019” to “March 18, 2019.” Item 7. Review of the Library Use Policy (NBPL 1) 1. In line 2 of the opening paragraph, the “Del” in “Corona Del Mar” should be lower case: “Corona Del del Mar Branch.” 2. I like the change from “customer” to “patron.” 3. The proposed change to Section B.1 seems largely unnecessary, since Section B.5 already provides the Library Services Manager with authority to suspend privileges on a 1st Violation. If it is still felt necessary to add something to B.1, the revision should make clear who has the authority to issue the 1st Violation suspension, and for how long. As proposed, it does not. March 18, 2019, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 9 of 10 4. Should the Board be kept apprised, from time to time, of the volume of suspension activity? Item 8. Review of Children in the Library Policy (NBPL 4) I continue to be troubled by the policy change that barred unaccompanied adults from the children’s areas. I understand the concern, but I am not sure there was a problem that needed to be solved, and this solution seems inconsistent with the more fundamental idea that, to the maximum extent possible, library facilities should be open to all. As expressed in the Library Bill of Rights: “V. A person's right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.” In other words, if a person asks to do something which NBPL 4 purports to bar them from doing because of their age, a librarian adhering to the Library Bill Of Rights could not, in good conscience, refuse the request. That seems to me to make most of the age- specific restrictions in this policy rather pointless. In addition, the restriction on adult use of the library seems somewhat misplaced: adults would not likely know to look for restrictions on their use of the library in a policy titled “Children in the Library.” Shouldn’t it be in the Use Policy (NBPL 1, agenda Item 7, above) instead? Item 9. Public Service Hours at Corona del Mar Branch Based on the low level of activity during the evening hours of 6 to 9 p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays, the staff report recommends eliminating those hours, and being open from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Monday, instead. Presumably, the reasoning is that the service demand would be higher during the daytime hours. However, I am unable to find any information in the report explaining what the activity levels were, historically, during the daytime hours, and how they compare to the night-time levels. Item 10. Grant Acceptance from California Library Literacy Services This report continues to use the term “customers.” As explained in agenda Item 7, “patrons” would seem a more appropriate description. The report also does not explain if, in accepting the grant, the City incurs any obligation to match a portion of the funds. I would guess it does not, but I don’t know. Many grants have matching provisions. March 18, 2019, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 10 of 10 Item 11. Presentation of the Annual Wish List Request to the Library Foundation Under “Flipster,” the word “complimentary” was presumably intended to read “complementary.” The BLT Manual contains as Tab V a “Cooperating Agreement” between the BLT and Foundation dated February 1, 2000. It contains a number of annual reporting and disbursement provisions which are difficult to square with the “Wish List” system of requests for support. Item 12. Presentation of the Annual Wish List Request to the Friends of the Library Do the Trustees have any wishes different from those of library staff? One possibility might be to request funds to purchase another scanning station. As I understand it, the library owns four of these: one for Central and one for each of the three branches. The one at the Mariners Branch has been out for repairs for what seems like going on a month. One might think the one assigned to the Corona del Mar Branch (and obviously not being used there at the moment) could be pressed into service at Mariners during the down time, but I understood it, too, is unavailable, as it is also out of repairs. I would hope this is an unusual situation, but if it is not, then it would seem reasonable for the library to own a functioning spare scanning station that could be substituted in during the repair times. Note: Regarding the Friends organization, the BLT Manual currently contains a copy of their Articles of Incorporation, but appears to be missing a copy of their bylaws. Item 14. Lecture Hall Update Trustee Johnson-Tucker gave an excellent presentation (video here) to the City Council on March 12. One slightly disturbing element was the mention that the BLT ad hoc committee exploring the project includes members other than Library Trustees. I do not recall the BLT making such appointments. If they had, the Brown Act would require all discussions involving a majority of this larger group take place at noticed public meetings.