Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-18-2022-BLT-PUBLIC COMMENTSJuly 18, 2022, 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 IV. ELECTION OF OFFICERS I believe a rotation of officers is key to the success of an organization. It allows the members to grow into a variety of roles, it provides a refreshing variety of leadership styles and ideas for direction, and it softens the transition when established officers term out. Item 1. Minutes of the June 20, 2022, Board of Library Trustees Meeting The minutes are well written and very complete. In reading them, I noticed one very minor typo: On page 7 (handwritten page 11), Item 13.A, line 3 from end: “schedule” should be “scheduled.” Item 3. Library Activities I am sorry to hear of the permanent reassignment of former Library Services Manager Natalie Basmaciyan to the City Manager’s Office. I believe the Library has lost a valuable resource: an energetic, enthusiastic worker and an innovative thinker. Item 4. Expenditure Status Report While there may be encumbered expenditures affecting the final tally of expenses on the first page, I assume that the tables on page 2 (handwritten 27) represent the total revenue for FY 2021-22 received from the Friends and Foundation. It is my understanding that according to their articles of incorporation, the sole purpose of both of these organizations to is raise money for the NBPL. As such, it is wonderful to see the fruits of the Friends amazing fundraising efforts, evidenced by their $200,000 contribution. In contrast, it is disappointing to see only $25,000 from the Foundation. I would guess they are saving most of the contributions they receive to fund the Library Lecture Hall, which, although being built and co-funded by the City, seems a facility primarily intended for use by the Foundation. One has to wonder if those contributing through “memberships” in the Foundation1 understand they may not be contributing to the operation of the Library proper. 1 My understanding is the Foundation, unlike the Friends, is a corporation without any true voting members. July 18, 2022, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2 Item 6. Library Service Policy (Council Policy I-1) For those unfamiliar with its history, prior to Council member O’Neill’s revamping of the City Council Policy Manual, approved by the Council as their Item 18 on August 8, 2017, there were a number of other Council library policies, which the BLT would periodically recommend revisions to, and the Council “approve.” This particular policy was used to articulate the Library’s vision or mission statement. However, after reading City Charter Subsection 708(a), Mr. O’Neill came to realize the citizens had delegated to the BLT responsibility for setting policy regarding the administration of the NBPL, so pursuant to Section 405 any approval authority had been removed from the City Council. As a result, he proposed, and the Council accepted, replacing this policy with the current Council Policy I-1, requesting the BLT keep the Council informed of any changes the BLT makes to its NBPL administrative policies. To the best of my knowledge, the BLT has never “codified” or readopted a NPBL vision/mission statement of the sort that was formerly in Library Policy I-1, nor has it bothered to follow the new Council Policy I-1. I believe the present Policy I-1 is quite clearly a request from the Council for the BLT, when it is considering changes to Library Policies, to provide a copy of the proposed new policies as an informational receive and file item on the Council’s Consent Calendar prior to their adoption by the BLT. This is presumably intended to give the Council members an opportunity to provide comment to the BLT Instead, as the staff report says, NBPL staff has been in the habit of presenting proposed changes to BLT policies to the City Attorney for review prior to their adoption. I would respectfully suggest that presenting revisions to the City Attorney to review is not the same as what Policy I-1 very clearly requests: namely, presentation to the City Council for their review. In either case, I would suggest: 1. That the BLT, if it still agrees with them, formalize something to replace the vision/mission statements found in the former Policy I-1. 2. Begin following the present Policy I-1, by presenting proposed revised library policies to the City Clerk for placement as informational items on the Council agenda prior to their adoption by the BLT. Item 8. Friends of the Library Wish List I am unable to tell from the report whether the $25,000 the BLT might request for programming would be expected to: (1) fully fund all the programming items listed in the last paragraph of the Discussion, or (2) supplement other City funding for some or all of the listed Library programming.