HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-17-2025-BLT-PUBLIC COMMENTS
March 17, 2025, BLT Agenda Item Comments
These comments on Newport Beach Board of Library Trustees agenda items are submitted by:
Jim Mosher
Item No. 8. Children's Caregiver Collection Ad Hoc Subcommittee
Update
I was unable to attend the February 24 BLT meeting, but based on the draft minutes, this seems
to be a continuation of Item 9 from that meeting, which was billed as an update from the
“Children's Library Special Section Ad Hoc Subcommittee” and was to be about a proposal “for
creating a special section in the Children's Library for sensitive materials.”
Based on that minimal information, many, including myself, thought “sensitive materials” might
be a reference to the “controversial topics” recently added to Policy NBPL 2 (Collection
Development Policy) and the proposal might be to create a “Children's Restricted Materials”
collection, similar to that created last year in Huntington Beach.1
Based on the similarly minimal information provided in the present agenda announcement,
supplemented by the draft February 24 minutes, the present item seems to involve the same
committee, renamed the “Children's Caregiver Collection Ad Hoc Subcommittee” considering a
“new collection for children and their caregivers” – possibly similar to the “Parents collection”
Chair Rief observed at the Beverly Hills Public Library2 and possibly covering topics similar to
the list posted by the White Plains (NY) Public Library.
Although the promised “full list” of other Orange County libraries with “similar collections” has
not been provided with the agenda, staff seems to have noted at the February 24 meeting that
giving books special prominence in “Parenting” or “Parent-Teacher” collections is fairly common.
Indeed, it would not be particularly unusual even for NBPL, since according to our catalog, the
children’s books at the Central Library are already segregated into some 45 or so separate
“collections” (with a similar number at Mariner, and smaller numbers of collections at Balboa and
CdM). For example, “Easy Readers” are shelved separately from other children’s books, and
within “Children’s Fiction,” “Mystery” and “Science Fiction” have sections of their own.
What is unusual about this is that decisions as to how best to arrange books to improve access
to them by patrons, at least at NBPL, has historically been left up to the professional staff with
the training and hands-on experience to know what works, and not normally dictated by the BLT.
2 The contents of the Beverly Hills Public Library’s various collections can be explored by accessing their
Advanced Keyword Search screen, entering an asterisk as the “Any Field” search term, selecting the
desired collection from the “Location/Format” drop-down, and clicking “Submit.”
Other libraries adopt different strategies, such as further organizing books within the Parenting collection
by topics, as illustrated in this blog by a librarian at the Indian Prairie Public Library in Illinois, where the
topic is inserted as a prefix to the call numbers by which the books are sorted. The Yorba Linda Public
Library, which was cited as having a Parenting Collection, similarly inserts topics as a prefix to its call
numbers as in ““J-P FEELINGS” to start the call number for Juvenile Picture Books in its local librarian’s
list of recommended titles covering “Children's Feelings: Grief.”
1 Despite much media attention to it, if one believes the catalog link above, the restricted collection
currently contains just 14 books (not counting two “long overdue” copies) consisting of 7 distinct titles.
March 17, 2025, BLT agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 5
In the absence of a staff report, many things about the present proposal are unknown.
For example:
● What age groups is the Caregiver Collection intended to address?
● Is the intent to bring together in one place both books related to parenting issues
intended to be read by adults and those intended to be read for or with children?
● At the Mariners Branch, would this collection go on the “public” or the “school” side?
Either choice would seem to create problems: if on the “public” side, during school visits
children would not be able to see the books intended for them; if on the “school” side,
parents could not browse books intended for them during school hours.
There are also more general questions of the extent to which the good intention of organizing
books by topics actually improves access. Not only can most books not be pigeon-holed into a
single category, but the scheme seems to assume patrons find items by browsing the physical
shelves, rather than our excellent catalog to find what they want.
The following illustration from the Beverly Hills catalog (which, unlike NBPL’s, allows patrons to
browse adjacent call numbers online) illustrates a potential problem. A patron browsing the
shelves for books to help with potty training will find most of them in the 649.62 portion of the
Adult Nonfiction shelves. But unless a marker is placed at the point it would normally go on the
shelf, they would have no idea a key book by the American Academy of Pediatrics has been
inexplicably moved to the “Parents” shelves in the Children’s Section of the library. Likewise,
those browsing the “Parents” shelves would not know what they are missing in the Adult Area.
Only rarely, as in the last line, does the library have enough copies to place a book where it wil
be seen by browsers in both areas.l
Similarly, it would seem that with the proposed Caregiver Collection at NBPL, children browsing
the shelves for a book to answer a question about a “sensitive subject” may have no idea a title
that would normally be where they are looking has been moved to the Caregiver Collection.
March 17, 2025, BLT agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 5
It would seem to me a truism that no attempt to organize shelves is going to satisfy everyone.
For example, organizing picture books alphabetically by subject rather than alphabetically by
author will please those who want to find books on a similar subject (to the extent a single
subject for a book can be defined), but will frustrate those looking for another book (possibly on
a different subject) by an author they enjoyed.
The only really effective solution seems to be encouraging use of the online catalog, within
which multiple subjects can be assigned to a single book, and others by the same author or any
of those subjects can be found simply by clicking on the author’s name or the desired subject,
and it will even tell if a book exists, but is checked out or at a different location, which one can’t
tell browsing the shelves. Plus, the NBPL catalog offers an extensive collection of filters by
which patrons can narrow the search by applying any combination of many additional criteria,
including location, age group, format and more.
Finally, since the present effort may have been inspired by the Beverly Hills Library’s “Parents”
collection, here is a breakdown, based on their Advanced Keyword Search (with an asterisk as
the wildcard search term), of how they segregate the books and other materials in their
children’s area:
Location Number Notes
J 19923 all topics: fiction/non-fiction
JP 13434 picture books
J TEEN 1672
J DVD 1206
J REF 944
J CD 936
JP HOLIDAY 671
J PARENTS 248
J TABLET 172 Playaway pre-loaded tablet
J BLURAY 106
J READ-ALONG 97 audio-enabled book
J VIEW 55 Playaway pre-loaded video player (discontinued)
As can be seen, the “Parents” collection is one of the smallest, with just 248 items. Within the
collection, the non-fiction books (whether intended for children or adults) appear to be organized
by Dewey Decimal Number, while the fiction books are shelved alphabetically by author.
This differs from the scheme adopted at the Indian Prairie Public Library in Illinois, where, as
noted in footnote 2, above, a parenting topic seems to be assigned to each book in their Parent
Teacher Collection, and all with the same topic are grouped together, whether fiction or
nonfiction, children’s or adult’s.
March 17, 2025, BLT agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 5
It is not at all obvious what kind of organization NBPL staff may be recommending as most
effective for our patrons.
It is also not obvious if they are recommending NBPL increase its acquisition of
caregiver-supporting materials, which would, again, be something the BLT has not historically
involved itself in, even though trustees at other libraries do give such direction.
Item No. 10. Library Foundation Liaison Report
Item 5 in the Foundation Director’s report refers to the City Council’s denial of help with the
funding of a larger LED screen for Witte Hall, and the Foundation’s decision to fully fund it itself.
This is slightly curious, since as Item 13 at its February 25, 2025, meeting, the City Council
considered requests to help fund two different sizes of larger screen and I’m pretty sure the
Foundation Chair said that if the Council did not agree to help, the idea would be dropped.
Apparently there was a change of heart, but the report does not make clear what increased size
screen the Foundation is now paying for.
Item No. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
As the Board may recall, at its January 21, 2025, meeting, the Board reviewed and made no
changes to its NBPL 12 (Circulation Policy), which in Section 9 contains its approved schedule
of fees and fines.
The Board is likely less aware that the Finance Department maintains a citywide Schedule of
Rents, Fines, and Fees periodically approved by resolution of the City Council. The SRFF
includes a section with “Library” fees and fines, even though City Charter Subsection 708(a)
gives the BLT, rather than the Council, the responsibility to “make and enforce such by-laws,
rules and regulations as may be necessary” for “the administration of City libraries” – which
would presumably include setting fees and fines for its use.
It was a bit strange, therefore, to see the Council’s Finance Committee, as Item 6.A on its March
13, 2025, meeting, reviewing for recommendation to the Council a SRFF that differs materially
from the fines and fees adopted by the BLT. While it is true the BLT’s Policy NBPL 14 (The
Friends Meeting Room) defers, in its final section, to the Council as to its rental charges (“Fees
may be charged for the use of the Friends Meeting Room. Fees shall be established by
Resolution of and periodically adjusted by the City Council on the recommendation of the Board
of Library Trustees”), I am unable to find any deference to the Council on other fees and fines,
and even with respect to what the Finance Department inexplicably refers to as the “Central
Library Community Room”), the BLT sets limits on how much the Council can charge.
In any event, both the existing and proposed Council SRFF’s contain significant discrepancies
compared to the BLT’s NBPL 14 rates. For example, the Council SRFF declares the maximum
overdue fine on movies to be $20 whereas NBPL sets the maximum at $10. Similarly, the
Council SRFF says the maximum fine for overdue Tech Toys is $400, where NBPL 14 says it is
$100.
The Board may wish to confirm that staff is following the BLT’s direction and not the Council’s.
March 17, 2025, BLT agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 5
It might also be noted that the Council, in contrast to the BLT, normally charges full market value
for the services it provides, unless a particular service is authorized for a lesser recovery in its
Cost Recovery Table (Exhibit A to NBMC Section 3.36.030). In that table (and despite the
Council not being the body authorized to set Library policy) it authorizes less than full-cost
recovery for several Library-related services including a $1 cap on a “Materials Use Fee,” which
the Council SRFF describes as applying “video/book per unit” (and is apparently less than the
actual cost.
Does anyone know what the Library’s “Material Use Fee” is charged for? Does the Council want
the BLT to charge $1 each time a book is checked out (or even opened in the library) and not
just for Rental DVDs/Blu-rays? And does it not want the BLT to charge more than $1 for use of
any other material?
1
Jacome, Francine
From:Linda Benner
Sent:March 17, 2025 3:09 PM
To:Library Board of Trustees
Subject:New book shelf area for caregivers of children considered
[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,
Thank you for the work that you do and for the opportunities you offer to library users to be part of the discussion as you
consider new options to serve the community, such as the caregivers shelves for sensitive material.
I am very hopeful that you can find a way to provide great information and support of the caregivers who help children
experiencing grief or loss, without removing books from the current children’s collection into an area that is intended for
adults.
My concerns are that that takes away the reading opportunity for children whose caregivers are not inclined to read
those helpful books to them when they need them.
If you are going to vote to create this separate area, can you duplicate the existing books for the caregiver area, rather
than removing them from the children’s area? Can you label the new area as “Books for children and their families
when kids are experiencing “Grief and Loss” rather than with a broad label such as “Sensitive Subject resources for
Caregivers?"
Won’t creating this new area invite many new book challenges that ask the books which are intended to offer a look at
cultural diversity be relocated into the Sensitive subject matter shelving area?
Thanks for reading my concerns,
Sincerely,
Linda Benner
longtime grateful user of the Newport Beach Public Library