Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-21-2025-BLT-PUBLIC COMMENTS July 21, 2025, BLT Agenda Item Comments These comments on Newport Beach Board of Library Trustees agenda items are submitted by: Jim Mosher Item No. 1. Discuss the Library Services Director’s Appointment, Employment and Evaluation of Performance (Government Code § 54957) Contrary to the general principle that the public’s business should be discussed in public, Government Code Section 54957, referenced in the above agenda announcement, allows “legislative bodies,” such as the BLT, to discuss certain matters in private. Among those, Subsection 54957(b) permits private discussion “to consider the appointment, employment, evaluation of performance, discipline, or dismissal of a public employee.” I am not sure if those writing the agenda were aware of Government Code Section 54954.5, which sets out the expected form of the announcement to further delineate exactly which of those allowed topics will be discussed in the closed session. While Newport Beach City Charter Subsection 708(e) places on the BLT “the power and duty to” “Approve or disapprove the appointment, suspension or removal of the Librarian, who shall be the department head,” I am guessing this session is not about any of those, but rather is the Board’s routine evaluation of the Directors’ job performance, and its communication with the City Manager, pursuant to Part B of the November 2002 Memorandum of Understanding found under Tab IV of the Board of Library Trustees Manual.1 If so, under Government Code Subsection 54954.5(e) would be more safely noticed as “PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION” (followed by the title of the employee whose performance is to be reviewed). In view of that, it would seem helpful for the Chair to clarify before the closed session if it is, indeed, confined to the evaluation of the current director, or will include consideration of appointment of a new director (as might happen if the current director had indicated a wish to retire). The Board should also be aware that the Government Code section under which the closed session is to be held explicitly prohibits private discussion of the director’s compensation.2 I think the Board should also be mindful that the rationale for this deviation from the general principle that the public’s business should be discussed in public, is presumably to allow candid dialog with an employee, and among themselves, about matters that, if discussed publicly, risk personal embarrassment or damage to the employee’s reputation and future career prospects. At least to me, that means the discussion in closed session should be confined to management style and effectiveness. In other words, setting goals for improvement as an administrator, and discussion of whether past expectations have been met or exceeded, would seem appropriate topics. Setting goals for NBPL to achieve as an institution, and whether past such goals have been achieved, would not. 2 There is a separate provision, Government Code Section 54957.6, that allows discussion about compensation with salary negotiators. 1 Provision B.4 appears to anticipate communication between the BLT and the City Manager every six months, which does not appear to be happening. July 21, 2025, BLT agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 The latter are quintessentially part of the public business that needs to be discussed and decided in public. In fact, whether the Board is aware of it or not, NBPL goals for the current fiscal year (through June 30, 2026), presumably developed by NBPL staff under the Director’s attention, were announced in the Proposed Budget for 2025-2026 that was approved by the City Council last month. They include: ● Develop new programming ideas for Witte Hall space. ● Expand the collections and what types of materials are offered. ● Determine what programs and services can be offered offsite for patrons on the Peninsula during the closure of the Balboa Library and with specific metrics to quantify achievement: ● Increase awareness of the Library ● Increase use of Library services and materials ● Advance digital and traditional literacy skills across all ages Item No. 2. Minutes of the May 19, 2025 Board of Library Trustees Meeting The passages in italics are from the draft minutes, with corrections suggested in strikeout underline format. Page 2 (page 6 of agenda packet): “Motion made by Trustee Lauren Kramer, seconded by Secretary Dorothy Larson, and carried 5-0-0-0 to approve the Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-4 2-5.” Item No. 6. Corona del Mar Branch Update Under “District” at the bottom of page 1 of the staff report (page 21 of the agenda packet), I am intrigued by the comment that Council District 6 includes only the “West” part of the Newport Coast annexation area, and that is the primary area from which patrons come to the CdM Branch. The reason this is interesting is that the fire apparatus stored in the same building may serve the “East” part of Newport Coast that connects to Coast Highway near Crystal Cove, as well. Do we know if residents of that community turn off PCH to use the CdM Branch or do they continue on to the Central Library? Regarding “Hours,” is the decision to not offer evening hours at the CdM and Balboa Branches re-evaluated from time to time? Further regarding hours, the recent “Third Thursdays in CdM” events mentioned near the end of page 5 (page 25 of the agenda packet) have stated hours of those are from 5 to 8 p.m. How does this work with the branch hours ending at 6? Does the branch stay open late on those days? Item No. 7. Budget Amendments for Fiscal Year 2024-25 The contributions received from the Foundation, which used to be as large or larger than those received from the Friends, are now substantially less. This is presumably due to the redirection of the Foundation’s fundraising efforts toward Witte Hall, which as I understand will not be a Library July 21, 2025, BLT agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 facility, but will be managed, instead, by the Recreation and Senior Services Department. Once completed, I believe the Foundation will be given priority for its use, but the Library will not. With the new split focus of the Foundation, the Library Board may wish to verify NBPL is getting its proper share from the Foundation’s endowment fund. Item No. 8. Children in the Library Policy (NBPL 4) The staff report recommends uncharacteristically extensive changes with minimal explanation of the individual choices that were made. Despite the care that has been lavished on this, the goal of reducing redundancies does not appear to have been achieved at the end of the first paragraph under “Responsibilities of Caregivers,” where a new redundancy has been added. What purpose is served by repeating “Library Policy NBPL 1, Library Use Policy (NBPL 1)”? Wouldn’t “NBPL 1 (Library Use Policy)” be sufficient? Beyond this, the insertion between paragraphs 1 and 2 of the new title “Responsibilities of Caregivers” seems to me to do more harm than good. As proposed, it would make it appear that everything that follows is about “Responsibilities of Caregivers,” yet the policy also seems intended to limit what City staff is responsible for. Similarly confusing is what was the fourth paragraph, appearing just before the numbered sections, and ending in “the Newport Beach Public Library has adopted the following policy.” That makes it appear that nothing that preceded that line, including such things as caregivers being responsible for their children, is part of the policy. Additionally, some of the key terms in the policy do not have unambiguously defined meanings. For example, does “Library” with a capital L shorthand for the Central Library, or does it include the branches? And while the opening sentence says that “Caregivers” with a capital C includes “adult caregivers,” what an “adult caregiver” might be is not defined (I think “parent” and “guardian” are obvious, “caregiver” less so). I would suggest: 1. The new subtitle “Responsibilities of Caregivers” be removed. 2. The sentence ending in “the Newport Beach Public Library has adopted the following policy” (probably with “adopts” instead of “has adopted”) be moved to the top, becoming the second paragraph. 3. The paragraph with definitions become the first numbered paragraph under that, with the subtitle “1. DEFINITIONS” – possibly including definitions of “Library” and “caregiver.” 4. The paragraph preceding that in the draft become the second numbered paragraph, with the subtitle “2. RESPONSIBILITIES OF CAREGIVERS.” 5. The remaining numbered paragraphs be renumbered. I think that would be clearer. Finally, I am a little concerned about the proposed replacement, in two places, of the existing phrase “the police may be called to escort the child to a safe location” with simply “the police may be called.” I do not understand the motivation for this. The existing language seemed helpful to me in that it explains why the police might be called. The proposed language creates, instead, the July 21, 2025, BLT agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4 ominous possibility that the police may be called not at all to ensure the immediate safety of the child, but rather to locate and arrest the caregiver for child neglect. Is that the intent? And if so, does the Board agree that is the message its policy should convey? Item No. 11. Acceptance of Donation Does (and should) NBPL identify items purchased with donations in some way identifiable by the public (for example, with a bookplate)? Item No. 12. Library Activities It has probably been explained before, but in the “Database FY Comparisons” table, for example on page 58 of the agenda packet, what do the reported numbers represent? For example, in “DEC 2024” it shows an uptick for Proquest to “19420” of something. That number exceeds the number of “articles retrieved” in that month, 7428, as reported in the separate table at the top of the page. Is 19,420 the number of log-ins? Does this mean there were many log-ins with no articles retrieved? Item No. 13. Library Foundation Liaison Report Since it has been two months since the BLT last met, I miss the comprehensive report from the Library Foundation CEO that has been distributed with recent BLT agendas. I hope it will return in the future. Item No. 15. Friends of the Library Liaison Report I remain curious how much, if any, revenue the Friends receive for NBPL through their participation in the Ralphs Community Rewards program. My understanding is the owners of Ralphs grocery stores commit to making a fixed monthly or yearly dollar donation to participating local non-profits, and that the fixed total is divided based on the percentage of their sales attributed to customers who identify with each organization. Item No. XIV. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS The Seed Library at the Mariners Branch is one of many featured in Seed Libraries Sprout Across OC, an article that appeared Friday in Voice of OC. It is not clear from the article if the various libraries share their successes and failures with one another, or coordinate in any way. As suggestions, the Mariners collection might want to try to adjust its offerings to match the seasons a little better, as well as introducing a small and varying cast of more unusual entries (perhaps trading with the other libraries), something like the “Lucky Day” collection for books.