HomeMy WebLinkAboutJM CommentsApril 23, 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)
One of the most fundamental purposes of the Brown Act, when it was enacted in 1953, was to
ensure that the meetings of bodies like the BLT would be held at predictable times and places.
California Government Code Sec. 54594 continues to require such bodies to “provide, by
ordinance, resolution, bylaws, or by whatever other rule is required for the conduct of business
by that body, the time and place for holding regular meetings.”
The currently posted Bylaws of the BLT provide (in Section 1) that “The regular meetings shall
be held on the third Monday of each month commencing at 5:00 p.m. at the Central Library
or at a specified branch library, unless noticed otherwise.” Setting aside the fact that the
uncertain location and the final phrase (allowing regular meetings to be “noticed otherwise”) are
already inconsistent with both the purpose and letter of the Brown Act, at its January 22, 2019,
meeting (as Item VI.A.9) the BLT made some less formal adjustments to its 2019 meeting
calendar to accommodate the sentence in the Bylaws following that quoted above. Namely, that
“In the event the third Monday of the month is a holiday observed by the City, such regular
meeting shall be held on the next business day commencing at 5:00 p.m. at the Central Library
unless noticed otherwise.” In doing so, it re-affirmed April 15 as a 2019 meeting date (leaving it
to readers to divine the locations of the meetings by a telepathic reading of the BLT Monitoring
List).
Although the resulting meeting schedule was never posted to the BLT website, according to the
above rules the BLT should have met on April 15, 2019. A meeting could have been held at that
publicly-expected date, time and place, and continued to some future date with proper noticing.
But no meeting was noticed for April 15. Instead, an obscure announcement was made at the
March 18 regular meeting, known only to those in attendance, that the April 15 meeting would
be rescheduled to Tuesday, April 23, and held at the Balboa Branch. The March 18 meeting,
although held at the normal place, was similarly moved to a start time of 4:00 p.m. (meaning
that a member of the public arriving at 5:00 p.m. with the reasonable expectation that the BLT
would meet at the time announced in its Bylaws find the meeting had already taken place, and
adjourned at 4:52 p.m. [per the draft minutes]).
This practice of convening regular meetings at unpredictable times and places may appear to
be consistent with the current BLT bylaws, but it is in complete violation of the Brown Act.
I particularly object when the arbitrarily-selected date causes the monthly meeting to occur at
the same hour as a regularly-scheduled meeting of the City Council.
Although I do not believe the BLT can legally conduct a regular meeting on April 23, I expect it
will. I therefore offer the following comments on the few parts of the improperly-noticed agenda
I have had time to review:
:
April 23, 2019, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 2 of 3
Item 7. Review of the Library Meeting Rooms Policy (Council Policy I-
7)
I concur with the recommendation to ask the City Council to recognize this as a BLT policy, as it
should have been all along.
I do not believe the statement in the staff report that “The Small Conference Room at Central
Library has never been available for use by the public, and is reserved for the use of Library,
City, or City-sponsored groups” is correct. I have personally attended a portion of a meeting of
the Airport Working Group of Orange County directors in that room, and I am pretty sure they
continue to hold their regularly-scheduled monthly meetings there. I do not know how
community groups arrange for use of the small conference room, but AWG is an independent
group; it is not (as far as I know) in any way “City-sponsored.”
As to the redlined policy, in the final paragraph, I believe the BLT has the power to set the fees
for use of the Friends Room, just as it sets other library fees, and although they should be
reported to the Council for possible inclusion in the City’s Master Fee Schedule, they should not
require Council approval.
Beyond that, I am saddened to see the BLT apparently acquiescing to loss of the Jorgensen
Room as a library resource. I believe it continues to be needed for library programming, and
was dedicated for such (at least part of the time) when built.
Item 8. Study Room Policy - NBPL-13
Regarding Attachment B:
I believe paragraph 2 of the “CHARLES SWORD MEETING ROOM” section (top of handwritten
page 58) could be improved by inserting: “The Charles Sword Meeting Room at the Central
Library is reserved for larger groups.” Without that, readers may well wonder where in the city
the room is located.
The proposed policy also continues to refer to library users as “customers” when I thought the
wish as to change that word to “patrons” (even though we apparently continue to have a
“Customer Service desk.”
Item 9. Library Material Selection & Downloadable Services
Has this function moved to Adult Services? When last reviewed (on April 16, 2018) the report
came from the Circulation and Technical Processing Coordinator.
The staff report does not explain.
I also have to question the establishment of the new “dead” category. Even beyond the
reference collection, all of which would presumably be classified as “dead,” items may be used
in the library without being circulated. Additionally, there may be items which it is important to
retain even though they don’t circulate frequently.
April 23, 2019, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 3 of 3
I further suspect that making acquisition decisions based on what currently circulates most may
reinforce an existing cycle and not respond to the desires of patrons who may not use the library
because it does not carry what they are interested in. I see this as a very opaque process and
not at all as patron-driven as library staff sees it.
I found it particularly troubling when staff unilaterally decided to discard its archive of City-
generated materials without any public notice or public engagement.
Item 10. Wi-fi Usage at NBPL Compared to Other Libraries
The statement in the staff report that “Wi-fi access is available daily from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. to
allow access during events held before and after library operating hours” appears to view NBPL
as consisting only of the Central Library. Wi-Fi access at all branches shuts off the instant the
branch closes to the great consternation of patrons who may have not completed a job on a
personal device. It is also shut off at the branches on holidays – precisely when it is most useful
to access otherwise inaccessible library services.
Even if NBPL were not trying to boost its Wi-Fi statistics, I would find shameful its decision to
not leave the Wi-Fi accessible 24/7. The argument that “The Library does not provide 24-hour
access to wi-fi in order to discourage overnighting on Library sites.” If this were true, the
homeless would be camped out at the adjacent Civic Center, where the free and unlimited Wi-Fi
is available 24/7. They would also be camped out at Starbucks and the Irvine Company
shopping centers where free Wi-Fi is available when it is not at the NBPL. The truth seems to be
few homeless have internet-enabled personal devices or are attached to them as others.
One might wonder what the policy will be at the new OCPL branch set to open in Lions Park in
Costa Mesa, and whether the NBPL’s fear is a consideration there.
All-in-all, it seems a quite arbitrary and decidedly patron-unfriendly policy.
The limited hours of operation also seem to be a policy that is not disclosed on the NBPL
website (where wireless is confusingly listed under “computers”), leaving patrons guessing why
it’s not available when a reasonable reading of what is said there and under Branch Services
(“Free Wi-Fi”) would suggest it should, or at least could, be.