Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-16-2024-BLT-PUBLIC COMMENTS January 16, 2024, BLT Agenda Item Comments These comments on Newport Beach Board of Library Trustees agenda items are submitted by: Jim Mosher Item No. 1. Minutes of the Dec 11, 2023 Board of Library Trustees Meeting The passages in italics are from the draft minutes, with corrections suggested in strikeout underline format. Page 2 (handwritten page 6 of agenda packet), second bullet: “Handwritten Page 14, Public Comments until under Item 7 VII, second line: Change “the Board finds a way” to “the Board should find a way”.” Page 2 (handwritten page 6), fourth bullet: “Handwritten Page 12, Item 10, Jim Mosher’s public comment: Mr. Mosher indicated he was a volunteer volunteered, he wasn’t looking to be a volunteer.” Page 2 (handwritten page 6), Item 3, paragraph 2, sentence 4: “Since 2004 and until recently, there was only one patron request for patron evaluation and that occurred in 2004.” Page 5 (handwritten page 9), paragraph 3: “Gia Gaffney Gaffaney, Newport Beach Resident, commented she was happy to hear that the Board is taking this topic seriously and putting much thought into creating a procedure.” Page 5 (handwritten page 9), paragraph 5: “Chair Watkins responded once the appeal decision has been made, the patron who appealed the decision would be advised of the location of the book.” Comment: Has this been transcribed correctly? The question asked “where the book will be located during the appeal process.” The response seems to be about where it will be after the process is complete. Typically, appeals “stay” the decision being appealed, so my guess would be that whatever the Director decided, the book would remain in its original location until the appeal was resolved. Page 7 (handwritten page 11), Item 10, sentences 1 and 2: “Chair Watkins reported that City Council appointed a committee to negotiate the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Foundation that will include an increased financial contributory amount by the public. The through the shared private and public partnership between the City and the Foundation.” [?, alternatively, the incomplete second sentence could be deleted.] Page 7 (handwritten page 11), Item 10, sentence 4: “The City is represented by Councilmember Lauren Kleiman, and Mayor Noah Blom with support by Yolanda Summerhill and Dave Webb.” Page 10 (handwritten page 14), paragraph 7, sentence 2: “Some of the content in the recently reviewed books that are being allowed in the children’s collection could qualify as sexual harassment in the workplace, yet they remain available for children to read.” January 16, 2024, BLT agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 6 Item No. 2. Patron Comments The number of comments (only four) seems unusually small. In Comment 3, a patron pleads that NBPL not discard its copy of New Catholic Encyclopedia, as apparently happened at the Mission Viejo and Rancho Margarita Public Libraries. The patron was assured NBPL has no such plans, but it is unclear how NBPL more generally tracks patron use of non-circulating materials and knows which are more used than others. Since he patron was concerned about travelling, it might have been helpful to let them know they could enter their location and use the “all libraries” option in WorldCat to locate copies closer to their home (although the Mission Viejo Library continues to be incorrectly listed in WorldCat, it appears there are copies in the Saddleback College and Soka University libraries, both of which are listed as closer than NBPL). If the patron has internet access, they can also read it without traveling in the Internet Archive’s Open Library (although only a few of the 15 volumes are clearly identified). Item No. 3. Patron's Request for Evaluation of Library Resources 1. The first request, from Alicia Beget, objects to three books, yet the Director’s response mentions only one (Pink, Blue + You!). Were separate responses sent for the other two (Who Are You? and They, She, He, Me)? Or were they responded to previously? 2. The last sentence of the next-to-last paragraph, copied from the Collection Development Policy (“Per the Collection Development Policy, any unresolved concerns regarding this title shall be referred to the Board of Library Trustees for final resolution”) seems unnecessarily vague to me. Pending the outcome of agenda Item 8, I assume it will be replaced with a more definitive explanation of the patron’s rights, such as “If you disagree with this decision, you have 14 days from the date of this letter [or whatever is decided] to use the attached form to appeal it to the Board of Library Trustees.” 3. I am somewhat concerned that in response to patron’s requests, low circulation copies are being withdrawn from the NBPL collections, even though the same item circulates well at other branches. Are all other copies of similarly low circulation being removed? As the letters indicate, interest in a title may vary by location. Before discarding something taxpayers have paid for, wouldn’t it be wiser to move the item to a different location, to see if interest is higher there? (I would note that when the present agenda was posted on January 12, the catalog showed two of the books described in the letters as never circulating – Not My Idea at CdM and What is White Privilege at Mariners – as being checked out) Item No. 4. Library Activities 1. It seems unfortunate to me that, as reported on page 4 (handwritten page 88), the gates to the breezeway between the Mariners Branch parking lot and Mariners Park have been locked. This must be frustrating to those who use the overflow parking on Dover and want to access the library. For pedestrians, it makes the branch more inviting from the Costa Mesa side than from the Newport Beach one, which seems strange for a City library. It also walls off the library from those using the City park. I thought (possibly incorrectly), that the library January 16, 2024, BLT agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 6 lot was intended, at least partially, to provide parking for the tennis courts, which can no longer be conveniently reached from it. Have the outdoor storytimes been suspended? 2. Following up on my comment (above) about agenda Item 2, on page 5 (handwritten page 88), under “Reference Collection,” how does staff know the “frequency of use” of non- circulating materials? Also is the relocation of the 000 nonfiction items from the reference collection part of a project to eliminate reference sections and keep only a small collection of reference books at the reference section? That seems to have already happened at the Mariners Branch, where, despite a large sign designating the “Reference” area, the shelves are filled with other (non-reference) materials. Item No. 6. Board of Library Trustees Monitoring List I see Policy NBPL 15 (“The Library Lecture Hall”) is scheduled for review at the BLT’s next meeting, on February 26, 2024. See my comment on Item 12, below. References to NBPL 15, and more generally to the Library, were written out of the MOU with the NBPLF approved by the City Council on January 9. The Board may wish to seek clarification of whether staff believes the Council has written the Library out of the Lecture Hall, rendering NBPL 15 irrelevant. And if so, what steps can be taken for the BLT to reclaim its administrative domain. Item No. 8. Process for Patron Appeal of Evaluation of Library Resources 1. In the revised Collection Development Policy, on handwritten page 108, in sentence 3 before “Donations,” I suggest: “If the a patron disagrees with the Director’s Decision, the patron may appeal to the Board for final resolution.” This is necessary to give any interested party, not just a book’s critic, a right to question the Director’s Determination. Without that, only decisions to keep a book will come before the Board. Since removals will not be appealed by the original critic, the defenders of a book would have no way to argue for a book’s retention. 2. And since prior to its posting in the Board agenda packet, only the critic, upon receiving a letter from the Director, knows an appealable decision has been made, I would additionally suggest the 14-day appeal period start not with the letter, but rather from the date of the meeting at which the Director’s Decision is reported to the Board. Otherwise, the appeal period may have ended before the public knows there is a decision they could appeal. 3. The Board may similarly want to consider whether they should give themselves a right to “call” a Director’s Decision “up for review.” “Calls for review” by the appellate body are common to all the other City appeal procedures I can think of. The “call” would also be available for 14 days starting with the date of the meeting at which the decision is reported. 4. To answer the public commentor’s question from the previous meeting (handwritten page 9), the Director’s Decision would not be executed, nor any other action taken with regard to a book, until and unless the time for appeal ends without an appeal or call for review. January 16, 2024, BLT agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 6 5. Since the proposed policy declares any Decision not appealed within 14 days to become final and unappealable (for 5 years?), some provision needs to be made for the backlog of existing Decisions already more than 14 days in the past. Presumably should the the Appeal Procedure be adopted at this meeting, it would say something like: “For Director’s Decisions reported after February 1, 2024, the Appeal Form must be received within 14 days of the report. For Decisions prior to that date, the Appeal Form must be received by March 1, 2024.” 6. It is evident that in the current context, there is a possibility of multiple appeals pending on the same title. Since the proposed Procedure declares the Board’s decision final, the first one heard would extinguish the remaining appeals. Presumably the Procedure needs a provision saying all pending appeals of Director’s Decisions on the same item will be consolidated into a single hearing at which all appellants will have an equal chance to be heard. 7. Finally, the Board may wish to consider whether it should establish a fee for the appeal (possibly refundable if the appeal is successful). The fee is supposed to mitigate the staff time needed to prepare the item for appeal, which includes preparing rebuttals to the objections raised in the appeal. Staff has indicated this is expected to take minimal time, since it will most likely just be repeating the arguments presented in the Decision letter. If that proves to be the case, an appeal fee would not seem justified. Item No. 9. NBPL eBranch, Database and Downloadable Service Update NBPL’s eBranch provides patrons with access to a vast array of material. Director Hartson’s “2023 Year in Review” (in agenda Item 4) mentions “the return of Digital Saturday” as one of the year’s highlights.1 While that once-a-year outreach is commendable, I suspect more could be done on an ongoing basis to inform patrons of what they have access to through the eBranch. For example, all the databases are accessed through a single Databases page. For most databases, patrons see only a very brief description of what they provide, rarely more than 25 words and often much less. Even if the information the database contains would be useful to the patron, that may not be enough to inspire their logging in, even after which the extent of the content may not be obvious if the interface is unfamiliar and non-intuitive. The page might be made more inviting to patrons if it were a bit more graphical, with thumbnails illustrating the information retrievable. Or better, if it more consistently had links to pages describing the database in more depth: showing examples of the results available and providing hints or instructions on how to get to that information when the interface is not obvious. 1 The link is to the 2019 event. Google found an ad for one on April 22, 2023, but strangely, I can’t find a listing for it on the NBPL calendar for that month. January 16, 2024, BLT agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 6 Item No. 10. Acceptance of Donation Did the Foundation inform the donor they could make future donations directly to the library? I think some people believe the Foundation provides the only way to make donations to the library, or the only way to make them tax deductibly. My understanding is the Foundation exists to encourage donations, and offers to act as a conduit for them, but going through the Foundation is not a necessary step in the process. In this case, the process seems to have suppressed the donor’s name without clarity they wanted to remain anonymous. Item No. 11. Children's Collection Development Update The agenda announcement regarding this item is a bit difficult to decipher. Will the ad hoc committee be presenting their final recommendation? If so, will it be scheduled for consideration at a future meeting? Or, if the recommendation is to do nothing, will the Board be asked to confirm that at the present meeting? If this is intended, instead, as an nothing more than an update on the committee’s progress toward developing a recommendation, will it be seeking input at this meeting from the Board and public? Item No. 12. Lecture Hall Update As the Board is well aware, at the January 9 meeting, the City Council approved a revised Memorandum Of Understanding with the Library Foundation, related to funding and operations, and awarded a construction contract. I was deeply concerned that although the construction contract was for a “Library Lecture Hall,” in the new MOU references to “Library” were deleted. I feel this will become like the Jorgensen Room at Mariners, built as part of a library with funds intended for library and school purposes, yet immediately appropriated as a “community room” which seemed justification to take it out of Library control despite agreements to the contrary. Like former Trustee Karen Clark in a December 19, 2023, email to the City Attorney (saying “If the lecture hall is no longer a intended to primarily benefit the library, the Foundation cannot legally fund it”), I have to question if funds donated to support the Library can be used to build a non-library facility. And even if the donors agreed, whether the Foundation can support a non-library project. Item No. 14. Library Foundation Liaison Reports The Library Foundation Report is very helpful and informative. It mentions last minute changes to a portion of Section 3.6 of the MOU related to the use of Witte Hall, agreed to by the Foundation Board on January 8 and the City Council on January 9. It should be noted that the full content of Section 3.6, or the rest of the MOU, being considered by the Council on January 9 was not clear to the public (or, it appeared, to the Council) since there was no definitive copy available for review. Instead, the public saw, without explanation, a January 16, 2024, BLT agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 6 confusing collection of “correspondence” that seemed to consist of drafts superseded by the version posted with the agenda on January 4, to which unknown further changes may have been made. The actual signed third amended agreement does not appear to have been posted yet. Item No. VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS 1. In my comment on agenda Item 2, above, I mentioned WorldCat listing NBPL as a local library holding a paper copy of the New Catholic Encyclopedia. However, I also notice it does not include NBPL in its list of libraries. Nor does it list NBPL as an institution with copies of What is White Privilege? or Not My Idea, two of the books mentioned in agenda Item 3 – even though NBPL has copies. Is NBPL a participating library? If not, should the BLT encourage it to become one? Listing in WorldCat seems a good way to promote both NBPL and its collections (it would also be good for the affiliated Sherman Library collections to become more visible). However, there may be subscription costs or other downsides arguing against involvement. 2. NBPL has been proud of the success of its State Parks Pass program. Not to be outdone, I notice the Orange County Public Library has begun additionally offering free and discounted passes to local museums and other attractions through their Discover & Go program. From: Alicia Beget Sent: Monday, January 15, 2024 4:47 PM To: Castro, Antonella <Acastro@newportbeachca.gov>; Kramer, Lauren <LKramer@newportbeachca.gov>; Larson, Dorothy <DLarson@newportbeachca.gov>; Creif@newportbeachca.gov <Creif@newportbeachca.gov>; Watkins, Paul <pwatkins@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Children’s Collection Development Policy Good evening Trustees, I am writing in support of the development of Children’s Collection policy that explicitly outlines that obscene, sexually explicit, or other harmful content (operationally defined by the committee by legal reference) are not suitable for age (age-inappropriate) will be removed from the collection. Additionally, prior to the adoption of material via purchase/donation/otherwise, books are read by staff and evaluated against a clear, and structured rubric. Any book currently on the shelf must be reviewed by staff in reference to established standards. I appreciate your time and consideration. Respectfully, Alicia Beget Newport Beach resident From: Tara Reilly Sent: January 15, 2024 9:17 AM To: Library Admin Team <LibraryAdminTeam@newportbeachca.gov>; Library Board of Trustees <libraryboard@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Let the Professional Librarians Do Their Jobs Dear Library Board of Trustees: We want and need to keep books of diverse experiences in the Children’s Section and trust librarians with library science degrees to make these decisions. Parents can and should monitor the materials their own children read. Furthermore, a board typically is not involved in day-to-day operations of anorganization and an appeals process is not meant to be a new, original decision. It is meant to ensure proper procedure was followed. For these reasons, an appeals process in not required. Let the librarians do their jobs and let's protect the First Amendment. Respectfully, Tara and Bob Tung