Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-18-2023-BLT-PUBLIC COMMENTS September 18, 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 August 21, 2023 Board of Library Trustees Meeting Page 2 (agenda packet page 6), Item 1, sentence 2: “Her preference is to service serve under an existing Chair before accepting that type of position.” Page 2 (agenda packet page 6), Item 2, last sentence: “Thank you to Adult Library Services Manager Lightfoot in comment #8 regarding addressing the Sound Lab.” Page 3 (agenda packet page 7), paragraph 2: “Vice Chair Lawson Larson referenced item F on Handwritten page 30 regarding the attendee limitation of 187 persons, she understood the room capacity was closer to 220 persons.” Page 4 (agenda packet page 8), Item 8, paragraph 1, sentence 4: “Alex Johnkins Jenkins was promoted to Mariners Branch Librarian II, filling the vacancy left by Circulation and Technical Processing Coordinator Andy Kachaturian’s promotion.” [note: Breaking this long, single paragraph into smaller pieces would improve readability.] Page 5 (agenda packet page 9), full paragraph 1, sentence 3 from end: “Purchase suggestions from Library patrons are encouraged and receive serious considerations consideration.” Item 3. Library Activities It is good to see, as usual, the many references to staff training during the past month. What I don’t recall ever seeing is any reference to Trustee training. It seems important the Trustees receive training, and not necessarily from those they oversee – including that they are an administrative board, created in accordance with state law. The Trustees may, for a starter, wish to review the new editions of the California Public Library Trustee Toolkit and Resource Guide recently posted by the California State Library. Item 7. Collection Development Policy (NBPL 2) The ad hoc committee’s recommendation seems to me a reasonable response to the comments in the draft minutes of the Board’s August 21 meeting. Two things I don’t understand about the proposed amendments are: 1. In paragraph 2 under “Patron Rights,” why is recommended to add “in general” to “In support of the above principles, in general the Library endorses the Library Bill of Rights and The Freedom to Read Statement as adopted by the American Library Association Council”? This addition implies there is something in the Library Bill of Rights and The Freedom to Read Statements that NBPL does not agree with. If that is true, shouldn’t what that is be September 18, 2023, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 2 of 3 spelled out? If it’s not true, the addition is meaningless. If the BLT is concerned there might be future changes to those documents it doesn’t agree to, it could say it endorses the versions as of a certain date. 2. In the final paragraph under “Patron Rights,” why is the recommended revision prefaced by “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in this Policy, any materials in the Children’s Collection or Teen Collection considered not age appropriate by the Library Services Director will be relocated to another Library location.” I always find “notwithstanding” clauses problematic. They suggest to me the drafters thought something else in the policy had been poorly expressed, which casts doubt on the entire document. What conflict with the remainder of the policy requires this? If there is a conflicting provision, why not clear it up? To me, “Any materials in the Children’s Collection or Teen Collection considered not age appropriate by the Library Services Director will be relocated to another Library location” is clear, direct and unambiguous. I don’t see a need for “Notwithstanding …,” and I think it reads better without it. In addition to the ad hoc committee’s suggestions, I would note the existing policy contains some confusing self-references that could be simplified (reducing length and improving readability, as the Council is trying to do with its own policies): 1. In paragraph 3 of “Patron Rights”: “Library patrons with concerns about a specific title in the collection shall be provided with a copy of the Library's "Collection Development Policy" this policy and asked to complete the "Patron’s Request for Evaluation of Library Resources" form, Attachment I of the Collection Development Policy.” 2. In paragraph 4 of “Patron Rights”: “Library staff shall evaluate the material, based on the "Collection Development Policy" established by the Board of Library Trustees this policy.” And since the BLT has three new members, I might also point out that several times when NBPL 2 has been reviewed in past years, I have mentioned that if the Trustees were to do a search of “library collection development policy,” they would find they vary widely. The governing boards of some other public libraries provide much clearer guidance to staff as to, for example, what collections they, as representatives of their community, would like to see strengthened. The NBPL BLT leaves this to the librarians to guess, and as they base their decisions on circulation, this can move in a direction that feeds on itself, possibly to the detriment of audiences with other needs or tastes. Finally, although the staff recommendation is for the Board to approve the revisions at the present meeting, and the BLT certainly has the power to do that, as I mentioned in my written comments on Item 5 from August 21, before adopting changes to any NBPL policies, if the Board were to follow City Council Policy I-1, it would ask the Director to present the proposed amendments to the Council as a receive and file item, and only after they (and the public) had that additional opportunity to comment would the Board vote to adopt them. The Board has no obligation to September 18, 2023, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 3 of 3 incorporate Council suggestions, but if it wants to honor the Council’s request, it should at least give them a chance to make them. Item 8. Acceptance of Donations The staff report does not indicate who the gifts are from. Did the donors as to remain anonymous? Item VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS I recently discovered that comments I submitted to the BLT for its July and August 2023 meetings, submitted in accordance with the directions in the agenda, were not received. I believe the situation has been corrected, but the Trustees may wish to seek assurance that communications directed to them are indeed delivered. Among the topics I commented on was the Joint Use Agreement for Mariners Library, which went on to the City Council as Item 9 at their September 12, 2023, meeting. I submitted additional written comments to the Council on that item, which was withdrawn without discussion or action. I have since discovered there may be a misunderstanding about the term of the current agreement. It seems to have been assumed that the term was 20 years from the date on page 1. However, the state grant program, and the understanding at the time, is it would be 20 years from the completion of the project, which occurred in 2006. . .