Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-17-2023-BLT-PUBLIC COMMENTSApril 17, 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 2. Minutes of the March 20, 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 1 (page 5 of agenda packet), title block, lines 2-3 (assuming it is intended to indicate meeting location – if not, the location should be indicated somewhere): “Newport Beach Central Balboa Branch Library 1000 Avocado Avenue 100 East Balboa Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92660 92661” Page 4 (page 8 of agenda packet), first full paragraph, sentence 2: “Children Children’s programs include two Storytimes per week, Books and Babies and pre-school Storytime.” Item 5. Expenditure Status Report Regarding the $5,000 (page 2) scheduled for purchasing “Balboa DVDs & Blu-rays” beginning in the fourth quarter, the Balboa Branch is expected to be demolished and rebuilt in the next two or three years. My recollection is that when the CdM Branch was rebuilt, the entire existing collection was sold or discarded and replaced with entirely new items. Is there a similar plan for Balboa (excepting, one would hope, the Nautical Collection), or will some newly-acquired items like this be retained? Item 7. Study Rooms/Charles Sword Meeting Room Policy (NBPL 13) 1. It is confusing to say there are three study rooms at the Central Library when I believe there are actually four (with one reserved for the Literacy Program?). 2. The first sentence would be easier to read if it said “There are three (3) study rooms available at the Central Library for individuals or patrons groups of 2-5 people, depending on the size and requirements of each specific room.” [What are “patrons of 2-5 people”?] 3. It remains unclear to me why the study rooms (unlike the Sword Room) have to be reserved in person. That policy seems to favor those who live close to the Central Library over those for whom travelling to the library to make an in-person reservation may be more time- consuming, and more irritating if, by the time they arrive, they discover no rooms are available at the time they had been hoping to reserve. At a minimum, if making an in-person reservation is allowed at the Reference Desk of the Central Library, why should it not be allowed to make the reservation from the Reference Desk at one of the branches where a patron might have asked if the library has rooms available? 4. Also, regarding the study room time extensions allowed when no one else is waiting at the end of a reservation, the policy, as written, implies, but does not say, the extension could be April 17, 2023, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 2 of 3 for up to an additional 2 hours, foreclosing use of the room by others until that period ends. To ensure availability, it would make sense if, as with computer use, the maximum extension allowed was shorter (say 1 hour) than the original 2-hour reservation. Or, alternatively, it might be even better for all if the extension were allowed until (and only until) another request to use the room is received. That could be the current policy, although it is impossible to tell from the sentences reading “Patrons may only schedule one study room session at a time and must wait until their current session is over before scheduling a new session” in paragraph 2 together with the possibly contradictory “Patrons can extend the length of their session if no other patrons are waiting to use a room” in paragraph 3. 5. Regarding the Sword Room, it is good to see the occupancy limit being raised, assuming the 20-person limit is legal (was this cleared with Fire Safety?). 6. The policy appears to say a particular group cannot use the Sword Room for more than four hours on any day. It is unclear why extensions of time would not be allowed if no other request for use is pending. 7. As to those periods with no request for group use, the policy implies the room is locked and unavailable. It is not clear why it could not be available to patrons wanting to use it for its originally intended purpose as a quiet study room. 8. In addition to the posting of Policy NBPL 13, the Library’s website has a separate page describing the rooms. Regarding the Sword Room, the page provides slightly different rules from the policy: a. It already says the furniture can be rearranged, even though the current Policy says it cannot. b. It says snacks are allowed (implying they are not in the study rooms?). c. It says “Walk-ins without a reservation will not be accepted and will be redirected by Reference staff to a Study Room.” Why would they not be directed to the Admin Office to make a reservation? This implies there is no possibility of making a same- hour or perhaps even same-day reservation. If that is the policy, shouldn’t NBPL 13 say how long in advance a reservation has to be made? d. It says “Entry to the room will not be permitted until at least (6) members of your group are present.” That requirement is not obvious from the policy, nor is it obvious from either if six people have to remain present in the room throughout the duration of the reservation. 9. The separate page notes that the Sword Room contains no “A/V equipment of any kind.” Many groups of the type the Library would seem to want to accommodate in the room require a screen large enough for group viewing. Has the Library thought about adding something for that purpose? Perhaps as a Wish List item? Item 8. Library Materials Selection The report does not explain who the “selectors” are, or how many there are. April 17, 2023, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 3 of 3 While I am sure Collection HQ is useful to Library staff, I have some concern that a system weighted heavily toward checkouts can create a sort of feedback loop resulting in a collection increasingly tailored to the wishes of the most active group, both to the detriment of patrons with other interests and not encouraging everyone’s exposure to more diverse experiences – an effect not unlike the social media “echo chambers” so often blamed for what many see as the increasing polarization of societies around the world, including ours. I am also concerned an item that hasn’t circulated in one year is declared “dead.” That seems a rather harsh judgment to me. And it also seems part of an odd terminology in which it is easier for a book to be “dead” than in the less harsh sounding “collection check.” As to “collection check,” I am not sure from the report if keeping books in the category recognizes the fact that a book could be used, loved and valuable to keep, yet rarely be checked out. An example would be a reference-type book I have checked out in the distant past and visit the Library to consult for a quick fact check without needing to check it out again. It is very disappointing to find one’s old friend gone, as well as to realize those unacquainted with it no longer have access to a circulating copy. I would hope such things as the Nautical Collection and the circulating history of Newport Beach books are flagged in such a way they won’t be thrown away. Which raises the larger hope that hope staff tempers Collection HQ’s recommendations to discard things with consideration of how rare and difficult to access elsewhere they may be. As a specific example, I (along with Chair Watkins) am on the City’s 30-member General Plan Advisory Committee. The current General Plan was completed in 2006 and is divided into “Elements” (chapters) each of which says it should be read in conjunction with a “Technical Background Report” providing more in-depth supporting information. I know the Central Library had copies of those in its reference collection up to a few years ago. Yet it appears they were “weeded” and no one at City Hall knows where a copy can be found. Similarly, the Central Library had copies of the Environmental Impact Reports related to John Wayne Airport expansion, which were a valuable resource to the many impacted by the airport, even if they were consulted only rarely (and did not check out, but could count on them being there). Most of those, too, I believe are now gone. In an ideal world, the Library would have a way other than checkouts to judge interest in book, such as patrons being able to associate with them as friends, and if a book has only one or two friends, to let them know before it is thrown away. As to the report, the chart at the top of agenda packet page 36 does not match the text. Page 35 says about 7% of items are in “collection check,” yet the chart shows a much smaller number, around 2 or 3%. I am also surprised by the statistic later on page 36 that 30% of the items circulate more than 40 times a year. Since there are only 365 days in a year, that would mean those items are out only, on average, less than 9 days at a time and must be immediately checked out by someone else for another less than 9 days. While I can imagine there are some books like that, I find it hard to believe 30% move that actively.