Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-16-2023-BLT-PUBLIC COMMENTSOctober 16, 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 3. Patron's Request for Evaluation of Library Resources Director Hartson’s handling of the two requests seems both tactful and appropriate to me. As may not be evident from the documentation provided, NBPL owns a single copy of the second book, “I’m an American,” being moved from “Children’s Picture Book” to “Children’s Nonfiction,” and that copy is housed at the Central Library (the catalog continues to show it under the old classification, but presumably it will change). Were it kept at Mariners, I believe the change in classification may have moved it from the “City side” to the “School side.” Item 4. Library Activities On handwritten page 27, under “Collection,” I am pleased to see NBPL staff was able to fulfill a patron’s request for an obscure item through Inter-Library Loan, presumably for NBPL’s non- refundable charge of $5 per ILL item requested. For the benefit of the new trustees, and while I cannot predict if the Orange County Public Library would have been as successful, I would like to repeat my frequent comment that OCPL offers the same service for free. Item 5. Expenditure Status Report The City Arts Commission recently reviewed some deleted City Council policies. One deleted Council policy related to the library is former Council Policy F-16, dealing with the Ackerman Fund, an endowment from which 75% of the annual earnings are dedicated to purchasing high-tech equipment for the library. Although Policy F-16 no longer exists, page 53 of the City’s adopted FY2024 budget shows there was an expenditure for the Library from the fund of $32,533 in FY2023. I do not recall what that was or how it was reported to the BLT. Item 7. Collection Development Policy (NBPL 2) I can’ find a redline, but in comparing Attachment D to the staff report, which is the proposed “Attachment I” to Policy NBPL 2, to the current version of the form found in agenda Item 3, it looks like some changes have been made (including some requested by the BLT at its last meeting). The form says “III-C” at the bottom – I’m not sure why. But my main comment is that at the top of the second page (handwritten page 49 of the agenda packet), where it is proposed to say “6. Please note your specific objections”, I would, for two reasons, suggest it say “6. Please note your specific concerns.” My first reason, is that the policy says the form is available to “Library patrons with concerns.” So “concerns” is more consistent with that. My second reason is that “concerns” seems a less confrontational word than “objections,” and may elicit a less confrontational response. October 16, 2023, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 2 of 5 Item 8. Mariners Branch Update As I nearby resident and frequent user of the Mariners Branch, I am pleased to be able read the written report, and disappointed I will be unable to attend in person, due to the City’s Aviation Committee meeting being scheduled at the same hour at the Civic Center. As with the other branches, I am curious how the service population of 26,983 is determined, and exactly what that refers to. The Trustees may also want to see how, in the Children’s Room, the Joint Use Collection is physically segregated between City and School materials. I may have missed it, but I didn’t see in the staff report any discussion of possible branch improvements or changes anticipated in the coming year. I seem to recall some prior suggestion there could have been a plan to “upgrade” the adult public computer area. I personally find the layout more comfortable to use, and more private, than that at the Central Library. One possible upgrade would be to shift to the newer and more reliable USB ports (not requiring external power) used at Central. The recent upgrade in outdoor lighting is much appreciated, including by people like me who previously had to struggle with unlocking a bike after dark. Control of temperature in the building sometimes seems to remain a problem, despite the recent HVAC refurbishment. One possible capital improvement I have suggested in past years would be to replace the frosted windows opposite the front desk with clear glass. I have never understood the reason for the frosted glass. Clear glass (possibly tinted) would not only make the entry area roomier and more inviting, but it might enhance security by allowing the clerks to more easily see what is happening in the parking lot. The trustees may also be interested in how the Community Room at Mariners fits into the library’s mission, is predecessor at the old Mariners, and whether its being controlled by the Recreation rather than the Library department is consistent with the original agreement and funding of the new facility. Finally, and especially as those who arrive earlier or late know, the area outside the Community Room, has proven a very attractive living area for the homeless. Item 10. Patron Connections As mentioned at a previous BLT meeting, I think it would be interesting to review circulation records to determine the distribution of where the people checking out materials at each facility live, and, conversely, which branch people living in a specific seem to regard as “theirs.” For patrons using the hold system, their preferred pick-up location would yield similarly interesting information. I would think this would give a more accurate picture of “service areas” (and areas where service is lacking) than the current guesses reported to the Board. Item VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS As most Trustees likely know, at its September 26 meeting, the City Council received a version of the City-School District agreement for joint use of the Mariners Branch that differed somewhat from October 16, 2023, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 3 of 5 that approved by the BLT on August 21, and after incorporating two last-minute sets of changes, none of which had been reviewed by the BLT, gave it final approval. I objected strenuously to this on September 26, because I believe the City Charter makes an agreement like this – setting Library use policy for the next 20 and possibly 40 years – valid only if the same document is agreed to by both the BLT and the Council. I had no success with that argument on September 26, so at the Council’s October 10 meeting, I urged them to reconsider. What follows is my written comment to them from October 10: I hope the Council will reconsider its vote on Item S13 at the September 26 meeting (“Approval of the Joint Use Agreement Between the City of Newport Beach and Newport-Mesa Unified School District for Use of Mariners Branch Library (C-9418-1)”), and send the Agreement back to our Board of Library Trustees before approving it, jointly with them. It has long been my view that our five-member Board of Library Trustees, having been created as a semi-autonomous administrative body by Ordinance No. 166 in 1920, was carried over into our City Charter with a special status in Section 708. The Council has, for example, recognized that Subsection (a) places the BLT in “charge of the administration of City libraries” and gives them the “power and duty” to “make and enforce such by- laws, rules and regulations as may be necessary therefor” – independent of the City Council. The intent of Subsection (g), giving the BLT the power and duty to “Contract with schools, county or other governmental agencies to render or receive library services or facilities subject to the approval of the City Council,” is admittedly less clear. But on September 26, the Council treated the BLT’s role in contracting with schools as purely advisory, with the Council having the ultimate and exclusive authority to decide what is best for the City and the Library. Such a reading is implausible, since the authors of the Charter could have phrased it that way, had it been their intent. The language they chose, giving one body the authority to make contracts subject to the approval of another, implies they wanted the joint consent of the two entities, not placing one supreme over the other. Reading it as the Council did on September 26, is much as if when the founders of our nation gave the President of the United States the power to make treaties subject to the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senators in Article II, Section 2 of our US Constitution, that could later be interpreted to mean the Senate, displeased with the one negotiated the President, was free to substitute and unilaterally approve a treaty of its own devising. To the contrary, it has been universally understood to mean that a treaty cannot go into effect unless the same document is approved by both the President and two-thirds of the Senate. If the Senate is unhappy with the President’s proposal, it must send it back with suggested changes, and only if the President agrees to them does it become effective. Similarly, when Article IV, Sec. 10 of our California Constitution requires the Legislature to present its bills to the Governor for approval, it is not understood to mean the Governor is free make corrections and unilaterally approve a new statute more to his or her liking. Instead, as it has since October 16, 2023, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 4 of 5 1849, it directs that the bill be sent back with the objections for reconsideration and possible concurrence by the Legislature. Only when both agree to the same text does it become law.1 Assuming “subject to the approval of the City Council” in Section 708(g) of our City Charter was intended to be read in a similar spirit, the proper action on September 26 would have been to send the Agreement, with the Council’s suggested corrections, back to the BLT for their consideration and possible concurrence. Only after they added their approval to the Council’s could the Agreement for library services with NMUSD go into effect. The counterargument that Section 708(g) could not possibly mean the BLT’s approval of a contract is ever needed because the BLT does not “own anything” to contract about, seems implausible to me. The Council members do not “own” anything, either. The City’s property is owned by an abstract entity (“the City”), and the people, through their Charter, would seem free to give power over it to whomever they collectively choose. The requirement for dual Council-BLT approval of contracts for library services with school districts makes Section 708(g) consistent with Section 421 (“Contracts”). And it might be noted Section 421, itself, allows the City Manager, who also does not “own anything” to be authorized to make contracts. Especially since there was no particular urgency about the matter – NBPL and NMUSD having operated for most of a year without a formally binding agreement -- proceeding on September 26 to enter into a potentially 40-year Agreement regarding library services with NMUSD without BLT concurrence was worrisome. It was worrisome because the version of the contract presented for Council agreement as a last-minute agenda supplement on a Friday night differed from the agreement the BLT had approved on August 21. It was even more worrisome because what was ultimately approved was the product of still more additional changes proposed on the day of the meeting, giving most of the Council members – let alone the BLT –no time to review. Moreover, most of those changes dealt not with ownership of real estate or even books, but were modifications of rules for administration of library services. And, as noted above, the Charter makes clear, and the Council has acknowledged, that is the exclusive province of the BLT. In short, I continue to believe that contracts for library services with outside entities, including rules for administration of those services, require dual approval of the BLT and Council, and the action on Item S13 on September 26 was inconsistent with that requirement. So, I hope the Council will reconsider. While I believe the Council-approved version is a substantial improvement over the BLT-approved version from August 21, and aside from multiple typos, among the problematic provisions that need resolution and approval by the two bodies: • Section 1.2 now appears to place potential continuation of the agreement after 20 years solely with the City Council, leaving the BLT completely out of the picture. • Section 2.2 appears to define the “Joint Collection” as the Mariners School Library Collection plus the entirety of the Mariners Children’s Library Collection. It is unclear that is the intent or if “Joint Collection” was meant to refer only to the books owned by the two Parties that are housed in the Secured Area offered for school use during school hours. 1 To be sure, the mechanism does not require explicit agreement by both, but it gives both the power to prevent enactment if either objects. October 16, 2023, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 5 of 5 And while it is good to see the District will be expected to pay for some books, it is also unclear if there is currently any identifiable Mariners Children’s Library Collection or if “New Material” requested by the District and approved by the City will become that collection • The extensively amended Section 2.2 also appears, through its broad definition of “Joint Collection,” to give the District the unilateral authority to order the removal of any children’s book from display anywhere at Mariners Library, and, arguably, to order its removal from the City’s collection entirely. Since the BLT has not consented to this, it seems to be in conflict with Sec. 3.1, saying the BLT retains administrative control. And it seems an especially broad overreach by the Council into a realm vested by the Charter in its appointed BLT members. Approval of it by the Council alone seems equivalent to the Council declaring it can usurp the City Manager’s authority over personnel matters. • Given that new empowerment, it is unclear why the last paragraph of Section 2.2 continues to say “District Representatives” (in addition to parents and patrons) can express concerns through the BLT Collection Development Policy (which would require City consent to the removal of City material). • Section 3.2 refers to disposition of books provided by the Mariners School PTA and Mariners School Foundation. It is unclear how these enter the collection. • Section 3.3 is titled “City Designated Hours,” but does not explain what that term means. • Section 3.5, although a subset of “City Responsibilities” places responsibilities on District employees. • Section 4.3 is titled “District Designated Hours,” which is a term used (along with “Secured Use Hours”) in Section 3.3. It is unclear if any difference is intended between “District Designated Hours” and “Secured Use Hours.” If there is none, it is unclear why two terms are needed. • Section 4.3 also seems self-contradictory in opening by saying the design promises secured use whenever students are in attendance at Mariners, but then seeming to say secured use will only be available during certain hours and subject to a limit of total hours per week. • The last sentence of Section 4.4, although a subset of “District Responsibilities” places responsibilities on City employees. • Although the exclusive use of a relatively small area for limited hours may be a minor part of the whole, it seems surprising the District is not asked to pay a pro-rata share of the operational maintenance costs of the facility, but only the salaries of the personnel it provides.