HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-20-2023-BLT-PUBLIC COMMENTSMarch 20, 2023, 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 Feb 21, 2023 Board of Library Trustees Meeting
Suggested corrections: The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with
suggested corrections indicated in strikeout underline format.
Page 6 (page 10 of agenda packet), last paragraph, sentence 1: “Vice Chair Ray reported she
was impressed with the NBPLF Board from the most recent meeting she attended.”
Page 8 (page 12 of agenda packet), Item VIII, paragraph 2, last sentence: “The cost is City
retains the fee of $35 dollars per application; but it does cost the City money more than
that to run the program.”
[The reason for this suggested correction is that I read the paragraph as drafted to say that to
provide “a service benefit to the community,” the City accepted a net loss (“cost”) of $35 on
each application it processes. From the February staff report on this year’s budget request,
staff projects $25,000 of passport revenue, which translates to the expected receipt of 714
execution fees. I was unable to find a line item identifying the projected cost of the program.
An alternate reading of the draft minutes would be that $35 is the cost patrons pay per
application they submit. That also would be incorrect, for according to the State Department
fee schedule posted on the NBPL website, those age 16 and older face a cost equal to the
$35 execution fee plus $130 for an international passport book and/or $30 for
Canada/Mexico passport card (less for children).]
Item 2. Patron Comments
The part of the response to Comment 2 reminding the commenter that Central Library study
rooms can be reserved only in person raises once again the question of why this is so.
Under the current policy NBPL 13, someone who at 10 a.m. decides they may want to use a
study room from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. would likely drive to the library to make the reservation, drive
home and then drive back at 7 p.m. That seems a considerable waste of resources compared to
making the reservation by phone or email and having to physically go the library only once. It is
also inequitable, in that it favors those closest to the Library, for whom the extra trip to make the
required in-person reservation is less burdensome.
The logic for not allowing remote reservations seems to be that if they were allowed, all times
during the day would be booked remotely and those physically at the library would have no
chance other than to hope one of those with a remote reservation turns out to be a no-show,
releasing the room after the 10-minute wait.
Is the assumption the rooms will be over-booked supported by evidence? In other words, has
remote reservations been tried and proven unworkable?
March 20, 2023, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 2 of 3
Item 6. Library Use Policy (NBPL 1)
Since the opening paragraph makes a distinction between “Library” (= one location) and
“NBPL” (= all locations), the last sentence, apparently intended to warn patrons of the worst
possible punishment, was presumably intended to read something like:
“Patrons who engage in any of the designated “prohibited activities” listed in this policy will
be asked to stop such actions, may be asked to leave the Library and may be subject to a
suspension of Library privileges (up to suspension of all access to Library NBPL including
online services requiring card authentication).”
Under “A. Prohibited Activities,” I believe in A.10 the people conducting book sales are not
NBPL staff, so I would suggest:
“10. Soliciting or collecting funds (except for staff's or authorized volunteers’ collection of
overdue fines, fees, proceeds of book sales, rentals, and Library donations);”
Under “B. Enforcement of Prohibited Activities,” to clarify the possible progression of
penalties, and possibility of a severe penalty at any level, I would suggest these changes:
“1. 1st Violation. Staff may address the patron to correct behavior and may instruct the
person to leave the Library for the day unless the patron’s violation of the use policy is
deemed serious enough to result in a suspension of Library privileges.”
[reason: The stricken words in Subsection B.1 are redundant with the admonition stated in
Subsection B.5. I assume the intention of B.5 was to give the Director the same discretion
to order a 1-year suspension at all levels without repeating these words at each level.
Repeating the admonition at Level 1, but not at the other levels, creates confusion by
suggesting the progression can be skipped over for first violations, but not for later ones.]
“3. 3rd Violation. The Library Services Manager or his/her designee (collectively, “Library
Services Manager”), may: (i) instruct the patron to leave the Library for the day; and (ii) issue
a suspension of Library all NBPL privileges (at all NBPL locations) for thirty (30) calendar
days; and (iii) advise the patron that continued misconduct may result in suspension of
Library privileges for up to one (1) year.”
[reasons: (1) The “and” is in the wrong place in the three-part list. (2) Given the distinction
made in this policy’s opening paragraph, saying the patron is suspended from “the
Library” (at which the violation occurred) is unnecessary if the suspension is of privileges
“at all NBPL locations,” since “NBPL” includes “the Library.”]
[comment: I assume “at all NBPL locations” is also meant to include “online” access and
that references in the policy to “Library” are not meant to, so this is the first level at which
a suspension of online privileges occurs. But I am no sure about that.]
“4. 4th Violation. The Library Services Manager may: (i) instruct the patron to leave the
Library for the day; and (ii) issue a suspension of Library all NBPL privileges (at all NBPL
locations) for up to one (1) year.”
[reason: Same as above.]
March 20, 2023, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 3 of 3
“5. Severe Violations. Notwithstanding the progressive penalties in paragraphs B(1)-(4)
above, the Library Services Manager may suspend a patron for up to one (1) year based
upon the nature and severity of any single violation.”
[reasons: (1) For consistency with the other subsections, Subsection B.5 needs a title. (2)
The word “of” appears to have been inadvertently omitted.]
Under “C.Notice,”
“All suspensions will be accompanied by written notice and a copy of this Policy, notifying the
patron of his or her specific violations of this Policy, and the suspension length and the right
to appeal.”
[reason: I don’t think it’s realistic to assume most patrons will read the Policy to discover
they a right to appeal. Omitting that information reminds me of the John Wayne Airport
which issues notices of noise violations to aircraft operators accompanied by a copy of the
County code authorizing the issuance of the notices. If the notices accumulate to three,
they result in a suspension. But airport staff cannot recall anyone ever appealing the first
or second violation, presumably because they did not read the code carefully enough to
realize they had that right.]
Finally, it might be noted that the Policy does not say if the Trustees have set a fee that must be
paid to file an appeal.
Item 7. Balboa Branch Update
I am not quite sure why on page 2 (page 38 of the agenda packet) the “service area” of the
Balboa Branch is equated to City Council District 1.
Council districts are drawn for reasons unrelated to library service. I would guess few library
patrons know where those lines are drawn at any particular moment, or that Council district lines
would affect their choice of what library to go to.
For example, in the previous districting, many “West Newport” homes were in Council District 1
while the “Newport Shores” homes were in the District 2, the primary distinction being that one
community is on the south side of Coast Highway and the other on the north side. It is unclear
why that distinction would affect their choice of which library they use. Moreover, even though
the driving distance from all those homes is slightly less to the Balboa Branch than to the
Mariners Branch, during the summer months the travel time to Mariners might be better, plus
Mariners has larger collections and more expansive work space.
Conversely, might some Balboa Island residents, even though they are currently in Council
District 5, choose to visit the Balboa Branch since it is closer to them than the Central library?
That would seem particularly true of summer visitors on Balboa Island who might have taken the
ferry, anyway, to visit the ocean beach.
Is there a survey indicating the Balboa Branch has no patrons from Balboa Island?