No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-24-2025-BLT-PUBLIC COMMENTS February 24, 2025, BLT Agenda Item Comments These comments on Newport Beach Board of Library Trustees agenda items are submitted by: Jim Mosher Item No. 5. Display and Distribution of Materials Policy (NBPL 8) Staff’s focus is on revising the annotations tracking the policy’s revision history. In that connection, it might be noted the current revision history that is being revised is, itself, inaccurate. As those checking page 34 of the BLT agenda packet for February 17, 2015 (currently indicated as the “adoption” date) will discover, the policy, initially called the “Public Give Away” policy, was actually first adopted on April 19, 2005. The February 2015 revision (including renaming) was the culmination of a review that had started at the November 2014 meeting (see page 23) and continued at the December 2014 meeting (see page 28) and the January 2015 meeting (see page 30).1 In addition, the policy had been previously reviewed, but without change to the 2005 version, at the May 6, 2013, meeting (see page 21). Whether it had been reviewed at any meetings between 2005 and 2011 is unknown to me, since the BLT materials from those years are not currently posted online. Staff may, obviously, do what they wish with this information, but it is a mystery why the April 19, 2005 adoption date and April 25, 2005, “revision” date2 have been lost, since retaining them was part of the February 17, 2015, revision. The history would seem to be something like this: Adopted – April 19, 2005 Reviewed - May 6, 2013 Amended - February 17, 2015 Reviewed - February 19, 2019 Amended - February 16, 2021 Amended – February 21, 2023 Reviewed – February 24, 2025 2 See page 2 of the May 6, 2013, minutes for an explanation of the significance of the 2005 dates. The BLT discussed the absence of a policy at their April 5, 2005, study session, and adopted the policy “in concept” with suggested changes to the staff recommendation at their April 19, 2005, meeting. Staff published the Board-approved version on April 25, 2005. So it appears April 19 is the adoption date and the note about an April 25 “last update” is merely a clerical notation as to when staff completed creating the PDF of the adopted policy. Note that in those years the BLT met twice each month, once for a study session (usually held at the branches, on a rotating basis) and once for a regular business meeting. 1 The links are to the staff report/recommendations in the agenda packets. See the associated minutes to determine what the Board actually did at the meetings. The BLT archive also verifies that substantive changes (adding announcements from “City-sponsored programs and events”) were recommended on page 26 of the February 16, 2021, packet, and a non-substantive revision on page 35 of the February 21, 2023, packet. February 24, 2025, BLT agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 Despite the in-depth scrutiny this policy has been subjected to over the years, I don’t think it is one of NBPL’s prouder achievements, nor does it seem consistent with what was once the Board’s view of the library as “a service-oriented library committed to meeting the informational and cultural needs of the diverse audiences within the community” or more recently “the cultural, educational and informational heart of Newport Beach.”3 One might think an institution committed to serving the “informational needs” of the community, and serving as its “informational heart” would be eager to provide mechanisms for distributing information of community interest. Yet NPBL prohibits distribution of anything other than the products of schools, government agencies, NBPL support groups and City-sponsored programs and events. While staff, in the past agenda packets and in consultation with the City Attorney’s Office, has offered reasons4 for these limitations, It may well be among the most restrictive in the country. An example of how this policy works, not only does it prohibit distribution of materials from most community groups, but, because they are not produced by a government agency,5 I believe staff could not even distribute copies of such things as any of the YALSA Handouts and Flyers, including 10 Things You Didn't Know Were In Your Library, intended to pique interest in using library services. Inability to do so, seems contrary to the Library’s former service mission. I recommend the Trustees Google “library policy, Display and Distribution of Materials” to see examples of what their peers allow on their “give away” shelves or tables. Whatever the outcome of the current review, I would note that former Director Hetherton ended his February 17, 2015, staff report with a statement that “I do recommend expanding the government materials we display on a variety of topics and have tasked staff to evaluate and develop this collection.” The Board may wish to ask if staff is still tasked with evaluating, developing and expanding the collection of allowed materials on the give away shelves. Item No. 6. Annual Budget - Preliminary Review As I have pointed out to the BLT in past budget reviews, what they are seeing in the staff report appears to be a higher-level summary of the more detailed budget that will ultimately be presented to the Council for approval, and which breaks down the line items by their allocation to various divisions within Library Services, including the individual branches. See, for example, the currently adopted 2024-2025 Annual Budget in which the Library Services expense budget 5 I have lost track of whether NBPL continues to be a member of the ALA, but even if it is, I do not know if it would qualify as a City-designated support group within the intent of NBPL 8, in part because I do not know who does the “designating” or what “support” is confined to. 4 In addition to not wanting to waste time reviewing materials and feeling information of community interest is now available via the internet, the reasons include reference to the ALA Intellectual Freedom Manual (see Publications) 3 The links are to examples of Library Service policies adopted by the Board of Trustees in 2003 and 2011, although mistakenly filed as “City Council Policy I-1” by the City Clerk. In 2017, recognizing the City Charter Section 708 grant of autonomy to the BLT in setting library policy, the Council replaced this with a Council Policy I-1 of its own (requesting the Board to provide the Council with courtesy copies of proposed Library Policies prior to adoption). To the best of my knowledge, the Board no longer endorses any vision or mission statement for the Library Service (nor has it ever provided a copy of a draft Library Policy to the Council). February 24, 2025, BLT agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 starting on page 237 of the 417-page PDF (and the revenues found interspersed within the lists starting on page 59 of the PDF). Those examining the currently adopted budget may also notice that the Library will be asked to supply not just dollar requests, but also a list of “Departmental Goal/Objectives for Upcoming Fiscal Year 2025-26” and a set of “Department Performance Measures” metrics against which the Department’s performance in the coming fiscal year will be measured. Although these specific sections are a relatively recent addition, those following the link to the February 17, 2015, agenda packet (in connection with the previous agenda item), may notice (starting on page 24) that even 10 years ago, the preliminary budget review process included a “Library Services Performance Plan” (starting on page 30) with even more detailed goals for each function within the year’s budget, which were presented to the BLT for review as part of the agenda item. While the dollar effects of the proposed transfer of certain functions to Public Works merits review and approval, it would seem to me the BLT would also want to review the goals and metrics NBPL staff will be proposing for inclusion in the Budget Detail (as well as perhaps, seeing the line item detail the staff report is summarizing). Overseeing the strategic direction of the NPBL seems a core function of the BLT. Item No. 7. Arts and Culture Update The Board may wish to seek clarification of its role with regard to this part of the Library Services Department activities as compared to the separate role of the much later-created City Arts Commission. In other words, is “Arts and Culture” part of the “library” overseen by the BLT or now something separate from it. Item No. 9. Children's Library Special Section Update In the absence of a staff report, this appears to be a receive and file item regarding the eventual recommendations to be made by the ad hoc committee appointed at the last meeting, and not an intended action item. Regarding that committee, the draft minutes of the January meeting (on page 5 of the current agenda packet) say nothing other than it will “explore creating a special sensitive-subject section of the Children’s Library.” The reference to the “Children’s Library” makes it unclear to me if this refers to creating a special section in the children’s area of the Central Library or to creating such a section in each of the children’s collections at each of the branches. It is also unclear to me whether it means the new section will contain certain subject classifications that have been deemed “sensitive” and contain all the books within those subjects, whether they are individually regarded as sensitive, or not; or that a section will be created to segregate just the books within each subject area that are deemed “sensitive,” while those deemed “not sensitive” will remain in the general children’s collection. Either way, I suspect this will not only place an additional burden on our librarians, but pique children’s natural curiosity regarding what adults regard as “sensitive.” February 24, 2025, BLT agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4 Item No. 11. Library Foundation Liaison Report As usual, the written Foundation Report submitted by CEO Jerold Kappel is excellent. However, in Item 1, one assumes it intended to identify Rebecca Lightfoot as our “Library Services Manager” rather than our “Adult Services Director.” And the next board meeting will presumably be on a date later than February 10. From:Linda Benner To:Library Board of Trustees Subject:Please don"t push through the creation of "Special Shelving for Sensitive Materials" without more time Date:February 24, 2025 2:59:36 PM Dear Library Trustee Board Members, Please don’t push through the project to create a separate "sensitive material" shelving area inthe children’s area without more time to allow the groups of people who will likely be affected and labeled, unofficially, more time to understand what is under consideration. I’m very hopeful that as trustees who are serving in a long line of trustees who will come after you, you will consider the unintended consequences of creating a precedent that could cast you and those who follow you into the role of deciding the "informational, educational, social, spiritual or emotional learning needs” of young readers. As a citizen, I would find thatvery concerning. I also find it painful to think of the possibility that families who have trans children, or children of lesbian or gay parents, or families of color, looking for books for their young children about racism, may have to visit a different area from other children for any self referential material. Linda Benner Grateful Newport Beach Public Library card holder since 1989. From:Teresa Chandler To:Library Board of Trustees Subject:Meeting tonight, February 24 Date:February 24, 2025 4:16:45 PM To: The Board of Library Trustees: I see that on the Agenda tonight there is an Item 9 to discuss a special section of the Children’s library for sensitive materials. As a resident and long-time patron I am not comfortable with a small, unrepresentative group of political activists deciding how the collection is managed—particularly when the focus is on limiting and restricting items. The library belongs to the whole community—a community that is more diverse than some might realize. Teresa Chandler From:Proton Damian To:Library Board of Trustees Subject:NO special section of the childrens library for "sensitive materials" Date:February 24, 2025 2:51:26 PM I do NOT want a NO special section of the children's library for "sensitive materials"! Sincerely, Concerned Citizen Sent with Proton Mail secure email. From:Rickie Dean To:Library Board of Trustees Subject:Sensitive Material section Date:February 24, 2025 4:43:44 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Dear Library Board, I do not want a special “sensitive material section” for the children’s library. Thank you kindly, Rickie Dean Sent from my iPhone From:Cheryl Fischer To:Library Board of Trustees Subject:Tonights Trustee Meeting , Item 9 Date:February 24, 2025 9:52:00 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Although I am unable to attend tonight's meeting I have some comments on Item 9 and the AdHoc Subcommittee's interest in creating a separate section of the Children's Library for what someone else determines to be "sensitive" materials. I do not support a committee of citizensor the trustees determining our families' interests or what material might be "sensitive" to us. In our family, even the youngest child has been taught that if a book doesn't look interestingor readable we just reshelve it and consider a different title - it's worked for generations!. We prefer to have the freedom to choose our books - in our free country.. From:gialisa To:Library Board of Trustees Subject:Special section in children"s library? Date:February 24, 2025 10:44:32 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Dear Board members: I am aware of Item 9 and the Ad Hoc Subcommittee's focus on creating a special section ofthe Children's Library for sensitive materials. I do not want government-appointed trustees determining any reader's informational,educational, social, spiritual or emotional learning needs, nor do I want the government determining which topics or people are suitable for children to learn -- or care -- about. Moreover, First Amendment jurisprudence explicitly prohibits government officials orappointees from limiting reading materials based on a dislike for certain topics: including and especially books with LGBTQ characters, racial themes, or civil rights. Caliofrnia's new Freedom to Read Act, confirms these principles as applied specifically to library, prohibiting public libraries from banning books because of the race, nationality, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation of a book's subject, author, or intended audience. It appears that a separate section aims to circumvent the intent and purpose of this law by finding a loophole with which to discriminate against the very subjects and audiences that this bill intends to PROTECT. As a patron of the library and a First Amendment scholar, I find this shameful and a rather embarrassing act by my city officials. So far, this Board has already violated the law by removing the book formerly known asMelissa from the children's section, depriving children of reading about a character that would increase understanding and empathy for children who are marginalized by society. The solereason this book was removed was because it featured a trans character -- it was age appropriate, and happened to be one of my child's favorite books in elementary school and itincreased her empathy for other children who are different from her (I am not saying it should be required reading, but rather it should be available reading). Creating a "special section" for "sensitive" materials smacks of a "separate but equal"mentality that has been soundly rejected by more than 50 years of legal rulings. CHILDREN ALSO HAVE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. Please do not be bullied by parents who simply do not want to be involved in their childrens'book selections. Every parent has the right to limit their children's reading materials -- the government should not be involved in telling children which topics are somehow forbidden ortaboo. Indeed, I cannot imagine a content-neutral way to assemble such a separate collection. Warm regards, Gialisa Gaffaney Constitutional legal scholar and professorNewport beach Homeowner, resident, former Girl Scout leader, soccer mom and elementary school GATE book club program leader From:Suzanne Gauntlett To:Library Board of Trustees Subject:Input for tonight"s meeting, Monday February 24, 2025 Date:February 24, 2025 12:51:12 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Dear Board of Library Trustees, Sadly, I am unable to attend tonight’s Library Trustees Board Meeting. I am aware of the planned discussion for Item 9 as well as the Ad Hoc Subcommittee’s focus on creating a special section of the Children’s Library for sensitive materials. I am opposed to and do not want the trustees determining any readers needs ever ~ FULL STOP. Suzanne Gauntlett Newport Coast From:Patty Gwin To:Library Board of Trustees Subject:Regarding meeting tonight, February 24, 2025 Date:February 24, 2025 12:46:22 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Dear Library Board, I have been made aware of Item 9 and the Ad Hoc Subcommittee's focus on creating a special section ofthe Children's Library for sensitive materials. I do not want the trustees determining the reader's informational, educational, social, spiritual oremotional learning needs. If parents do not want their child to access these kinds of books, then theyshould accompany them to the library. I trust the American Library Association and the Library Director of the NBPL.Thank you,Patty Gwin From:DANA HUNT To:Library Board of Trustees Subject:Item 9 Date:February 24, 2025 1:58:27 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Dear Library Board, I am aware that a vocal group it trying to make the board trustees determine what children can read in our library. I do not support this. Setting up a special section is also not a good idea. If parents want to control what information their children can read and see, then they can do that. But their values and views should not restrict what other children can see. It's a slippery slope to banning books for all of us. Dana Hunt From:Shanna Kerr To:Library Board of Trustees Subject:NO to Special Section of Sensitive Materials Date:February 24, 2025 3:07:56 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. As a long time resident of Orange County and someone that does business and has clients inNewport Beach, I want to encourage you to vote NO to a Special Section of Sensitive Materials in the Children’s Library. In these times where there is increasing rates of suicide,anxiety and depression for our children, they need to have access to all the information possible to help them on their journey to adulthood. Withholding anything that can help themwould be tantamount to causing harm and possible even be deadly. We owe and need to give our precious children all the resources they need to grow into productive healthy adults. Vote NO!! Shanna Kerr From:Marie Martin To:Library Board of Trustees Subject:Trustees should not be able to determine library reading material!! Date:February 24, 2025 9:30:33 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. I do not want the trustees determining the reader's informational, educational, social,spiritual, and emotional learning needs. I do not want their biases to affect what peoplelearn. They think it’s ok to be associated with Nazi’s and Nazi ideals. As the gentlemansaid in a recent meeting, we reject the council’s basic premises on many issues. From:CL MILLER To:Library Board of Trustees Subject:No on Item 9 - No Trustees Involved in Book Selection Process Date:February 24, 2025 1:29:59 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Dear Board, I wish to express my displeasure over Item 9 on tonight’s agenda. We do not need to continue withthe demonization of librarians or the fear mongering around our children’s books. Let’s not give in to the hysteria and the disinformation which claims we have problems that simply do not exist. Trust librarians and parents to do the editing and the sorting of their own reading material. Thank you,Joan Miller From:Laurel Nelligan To:Library Board of Trustees Subject:Library Special Section Date:February 24, 2025 12:19:47 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Hello, Please let the librarians determine what is appropriate for our children to read. Please trust those that went to school for this. There is no reasons for trustees to make these kind of decisions for the public. I love when my children learn through reading at the library. Please don’t take their options away from them. This city is enough of a bubble as it is. Creating a separate section is the same as removing the book. Do not pretend otherwise. Thanks, Laurel From:Hayes Noble To:Library Board of Trustees Subject:Input from a community pastor Date:February 24, 2025 2:44:51 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Dear Board of Library Trustees, I am aware of Item 9 and the Ad Hoc Subcommittee's focus on creating a special section of the Children's Library for sensitive materials. I do not want the trustees determining the reader's informational, educational, social, spiritual or emotional learning needs. Thank you, Pastor Hayes Noble From:Gena Reed To:Library Board of Trustees Subject:Input for Tonight"s Meeting, Monday February 24th Date:February 24, 2025 12:11:42 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. To: The Board of Library Trustees: Unfortunately I cannot be at the meeting tonight at the Library. However, I am aware of thediscussion planned for Item 9 and also the Ad Hoc Subcommittee’s focus on creating a special section of the Children’s Library for sensitive materials. I do not feel that at the trustees should determine the reader’s informational, educational,social, spiritual learning needs. Gena H. Reed From:Stephanie Sandoz To:Library Board of Trustees Subject:Concerned resident Date:February 24, 2025 12:46:05 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. To Whom it May Concern: I am aware of Item 9 and the Ad Hoc Subcommittee's focus on creating a special section of the Children's Library for sensitive materials. I do not want the trustees determining the reader's informational, educational, social, spiritual or emotional learning needs. This would be highly inappropriate and a clear abuse of power. Sincerely, Stephanie Sandoz Licensed Clinical Psychologist Newport Coast homeowner From:jeanne scheper To:Library Board of Trustees Subject:Item 9 regrading Children"s collections Date:February 24, 2025 10:30:30 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Dear Board of Library Trustees, I am unable to attend the meeting today, however I noticed Item 9 on the agenda and the AdHoc Subcommittee on creating a special section of the Children's Library for sensitive materials. I am very concerned about the creation of any such section which could impede orcreate barriers to reader’s access and not be in keeping with the mission of the library. I would not want to see trustees determining or impeding access, or otherwise interfering with theexisting role of librarians in collection curation. I am a library reader and my family has enjoyed the children’s section for over 15 years. I have great respect for the library, the librarians, and the collection. Dr. Jeanne ScheperNewport Library community member — From:Susan Tate To:Library Board of Trustees Subject:Input for Tonight"s Meeting, Monday February 24th Date:February 24, 2025 12:29:59 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. I am aware of the discussion planned for Item 9 and also the Ad HocSubcommittee’s focus on creating a special section of the Children’s Library for sensitive materials. I do not feel that at the trustees should determine the reader’s informational,educational, social, or spiritual learning needs. This isn’t Nazi Germany…..yet. Susan Tate Newport Coast, CA From:Lori WENGER To:Library Board of Trustees Subject:New section for sensitive materials in the library. Date:February 24, 2025 3:07:29 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Dear Library Board, My name is Lori Wenger and my family has lived in NB since 1992. My husband Brahm and I feel strongly that we do NOT want you to develop a new section of the NB Children’s Library for “sensitive materials’”. Parents are totally capable of choosing appropriate books for their children and have done so for decades and decades. There is no sudden need for monitoring by the Library or Library Board. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Lori & Brahm Wenger. Sent from my iPhone From:Annette Wiley To:Library Board of Trustees Subject:Trustee censorship Date:February 24, 2025 12:28:00 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Regarding Item 9 and the Ad Hoc Subcommittee's focus on creating a special section of the Children's Library for sensitive materials. I do not want the trustees determining the reader's informational, educational, social, spiritual or emotional learning needs. ANNETTE WILEY From:WILLIAM WINTON To:Library Board of Trustees Subject:Trustees Date:February 24, 2025 11:27:50 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Dear Trustees, As a retired teacher from NBUSD, I strongly disagree with allowing trustees to choose content matter in our libraries. Librarians are professionals and should be allowed to do their work unimpeded by people with political beliefs. Teri Winton