HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-19-2016 JM CommentsDecember 19, 2016, BLT Agenda Item Comments
Comments on the Newport Beach Board of Library Trustees (BLT) agenda items submitted by: Jim Mosher (jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229)
Item 1. Minutes of the November 21, 2016 Board of Library Trustees
Meeting
Page 3 (handwritten), Item IV: It might be helpful to identify the “event” being referred to as the
(NB Chamber of Commerce’s) Citizens of the Year dinner. Otherwise, in future years, few will
have any idea what these comments were about.
Page 7 (handwritten), paragraph 2: “Chair Johnson-Tucker requested City Attorney review of
the policy and staff provide a redlined version.”
Item 2. Customer Comments
It seems remarkable that only one comment would have been received during the entire month
of November. Is there any explanation?
Item 3. Library Activities
From handwritten page 11, it appears library staff is proceeding with its initiatives without any
formal review by, or direction from, the Trustees. Yet paragraph 2 from the end of handwritten
page 8 suggests the Trustees had asked for greater involvement. Whether they did, or not, I
think they should be publicly screening the ideas, especially since they affect both the library’s
public interface and how its resources are being used.
Also on handwritten page 11, the upgrade of the Millennium software is listed as if it was
something separate and apart from the December 7 closure (which seems to be listed as if it
were confined to fairly routine housekeeping matters). Is Millennium not the software whose
upgrade necessitated the closure?
Item 6. Corona del Mar Branch Project Update
The only speaker on this issue at the December 13, 2016, meeting of the “outgoing” City
Council, was Joy Brenner, who expressed concern that the “new” Council, before reviewing the
eventual bids, may have to be re-educated about this.
Item 7. Auditorium Facility at the Central Library Site
As the Board is probably aware, at the City Council’s November 29, 2016, meeting, then-Mayor
Diane Dixon added a number of amendments to the Development Agreement being considered
for the Museum House project at 850 San Clemente Drive. They included earmarking $1 million
for a Central Library lecture hall (as well as $2 million toward “arts and culture” at the old library
building at 856 San Clemente Drive, which may or may not be donated to the City as part of this
deal).
December 19, 2016, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2
Whatever one may think of the lecture hall proposal, I thought this action was inappropriate for a
number reasons: (1) the proposal was not on the agenda, (2) it was introduced after public
comment on the item (other than by Mr. Bill Witte) was closed, and (3) it seems strange to be
committing funds to something the need and desire for which has never had any Council-level
public discussion.
Item 8. Children in the Library
The report mentions City Attorney review, but does not make clear if that review has happened
yet, or if this version will be submitted to them. Whenever it happens, it would seem useful for
the Trustees to know of any changes suggested by the City Attorney and the detailed reasons
for them. If any of those changes are not strictly and clearly legally necessary ones, the
Trustees may wish to question them so as to ensure the ultimate document reflects, to the
greatest extent legally possible, the Board’s policy wishes. In other words, the City Attorney
should be implementing the Board’s policies and not, in reviewing them, inserting new ones of
their own invention, as has sometimes happened in the past.
Item 9. Rules for Acceptable Use of Library Wireless Internet
Connections
I commend staff for returning to the system in which WiFi service is available without an
elaborate sign in procedure.
I would go further and recommend returning to the system in which connection to the WiFi
system remained available 24/7. Currently, I believe the system remains on, but outside of the
posted building hours it is programmed to return a message of “sorry the library is closed.” I
appreciate that this is claimed to deter an accumulation of homeless persons during those
hours. I don’t know if it actually affects that, but I do know that it is inconvenient for everyone
else. Those waiting for the doors to open can’t use their devices under the doors open, and
those who have not completed their work before closing and unnecessarily forced to find
another location with a WiFi connection. Likewise, those who find a branch unexpectedly
closed may wish to connect to look for messages regarding the closure, or conduct
electronically-possible business anyway (such as accessing the catalog and/or placing a hold
on a book they had hoped to check out) – yet are unable to do so. Having public waiting areas
and NOT allowing public electronic access in them, when it could be so easily provided, does
not make much sense to me, and is contrary to the policy at other libraries I know of (for
example, the City of Orange) as well as at Newport Beach’s own City Hall.
Regarding the copyright notice (on the proposed “splash page”), closely related to, but not quite
on topic for this agenda item, greater clarity should be offered somewhere on the copyright
status of materials downloaded from the library’s electronic databases. For example, I believe
PDF copies of articles downloaded from the ProQuest database carry copyright notices; yet I
have heard they can be shared, either as printouts or electronically (for example, forwarding to
others by email). It would be good to know what the truth of this is, so that patrons are neither
doing something illegal nor feeling unnecessarily guilty about doing something that is legal.