The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPUBLIC COMMENTSAugust 21, 2017, 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 July 17, 2017 Board of Library Trustees Meeting The following very minor changes are suggested: Handwritten page 8 (= page 5 of minutes): Item 8, next to last sentence of first paragraph: “Between February and December 2016, 15-20 people used the branch at on an average night.” [without this, “15-20” could be read as the total nighttime visitors over 11 months] Handwritten page 9 (= page 6 of minutes): Item 11, last sentence of first paragraph: “This position will be filled, and the duties to be streamlined.” [alternatively, “are to be” or “to will be”] Item 4. Expenditure Status Report Without explanation, is handwritten page 24 the final, unaudited year-end results for Fiscal Year 2016-2017? Wouldn’t one hope for a mix of line items being over- and under-budget, leading to an overall balance? Or is it required that each line end the year under budget, with the appearance of unspent dollars returned to the General Fund? How much of the excess is “encumbered” so as be retained by Library Services (for example, adjustments made to accommodate Friends and Foundation gifts)? For salaries and benefits, it looks like adjustments were made that turned out not to be necessary, as the final expenditures ended up below the original budget? Item 5. Board of Library Trustees Monitoring List The top item (“Review / Possible Revisions to the City Council Policies for the Library”) takes on renewed urgency since, at its August 8, 2017, meeting, the City Council (without consulting the BLT) adopted a completely changed version of “Council” Policy I-1 (“Library Service Policy”) and removed from the City Council Policy Manual its versions of most of the other library-related “I” policies (I-2 through I-8, some of which did not, incidentally, match the more recent versions on the Library website), although it did retain control of Policy I-7 (“Library Meeting Rooms”). The changes were supposedly made in recognition of City Charter Section 708 assigning the power and duty to set policies for administration of the libraries to the Trustees, and not to the Council. However, the change may not have been particularly well thought out, since, for example, the Charter, including Section 708, also mentions such things as that the ultimate acceptance of gifts must be approved by the City Council. August 21, 2017, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 2 of 3 Item 7. Facilities Review 1. The staff report gives the impression that the library system in Newport Beach has experienced nothing but expansion. It should be recognized that some of the “expanded” amenities have replaced previously existing ones that are no longer offered, much like the mix of collections changes with changing technologies and community interests. For example, the Teen Center at the Central Library replaced a relatively well used Business Reading Room and the Trustees recently approved the Sword Room being repurposed as a group study room. Similarly, a number of City properties once used for library purposes were given up when replaced with new ones (the former locations for Balboa, CdM, Mariners and Newport Center being examples). And whole facilities acquired for library purposes have been lost, sometimes without replacement, for example the West Newport building. 2. Regarding the statistics on Friends Room use: a. Are the numbers given in the tables hours of use? b. In the second table, is “Outside Room Rental” the only line item in all the tables for which the City actually received rent? Whether or not so, who gets the rents paid? c. Also in the second table, “PSYE Board” is not an abbreviation or acronym I recognize. With some help from Google, I’m guessing PSYE could stand for “Pacific Symphony Youth Ensembles,” but I have no idea if that is correct. d. The tables of Appendix A (for 2015 and 2016) appear to have fewer line items than the ones for 2017 (roughly 25 vs. 40), including no “Outside Room Rental” line. Has a mix of events similar to 2017 been somehow compressed into a smaller number of categories (for example, all Foundation programming in one line)? 3. With regard to the Mariners Branch, as indicated orally at the last BLT meeting, in addition to possibly needing an improved storytime area, I believe there may be a public interest in (and expectation of) areas being made available for group study. 4. Not to be nitpicking, but the statement about the Mariners Branch, under “Usage” on handwritten page 33, that “The use of the branch has increased exponentially since the opening of the new facility in 2006” is conceivable, but seems unlikely to be correct. More likely, use has increased “steadily,” meaning a “linear” growth, with a similar number of new users added each year. For example, if Mariners opened with 10,000 customers per year and added 1,000 each year, after 11 years it would have 10,000 + 11,000 = 21,000 customers per year, and 11 years from now we would expect 32,000. The much misused term “growing exponentially” refers to a different kind of process, sometimes called “geometric” growth, in which a number increases by the same factor in each interval of time. Such growth eventually becomes completely overwhelming even with the most modest growth factor. For example, if Mariners started with 10,000 customers per year and that grew by 10% each year, after 11 years we would expect 28,531 customers per year and 11 years from now, 81,403. And a larger annual growth August 21, 2017, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 3 of 3 factor produces even more disastrous results (20% exponential growth more than doubles need every 4 years). In other words, if Mariners use has been growing linearly, and we expect that trend to continue, the BLT has a planning problem. But if we see use growing exponentially very far into the future, the BLT has a problem that will become unmanageable no matter what it does (the necessary facility size eventually exceeding not just the size of all of Mariners Park, but any other thing you can imagine). Item 9. Statistical Comparison of Newport Beach Public Library Support Groups and Regional Peer Libraries, 2015/16 I don’t understand all the terms used in the presentation (which apparently refer to line items in the IRS Form 990), and have to wonder if there is uniformity in the way the various institutions report things to the IRS. For example, is an “Endowment” understood as something distinct from “Assets”? Or is it part of “Assets”? For Carlsbad, it couldn’t be part of assets, for the reported endowment is larger than the reported assets. But for NBPLF it’s not obvious, and if the $2,025,352 endowment is not part of assets, what do the NBPLF’s $3,190,047 of other reported assets consist of? Similarly, is “Public Support” uniformly reported as something separate from “Revenue”? It seems impossible to tell. Mountain View appears to view it that way, with lots of Public Support, but little other Revenue. While the Mission Viejo Friends may not. Their Revenue appears to consist of their Public Support plus a little more. And the annual “gift” is probably regarded as part of the year’s “expenses” in all the reports, but it’s hard to be sure. I would think the Trustees would benefit from a clear understanding of the various items reported by the NBPL Foundation and Friends. In the case of the Foundation, the 5% of endowment mentioned in the staff report would be about $100,000 per year, which is much less than their reported revenue, expenses or gift. The staff report seems to imply the Library receives that annually as an unrestricted gift, unrelated to the Wish List. Is that correct? Item 12. Request to Close Libraries on December 7, 2017 for Staff Training I’m unable to find any clear explanation, either in the report or the training organization’s literature, of why reviewing the results of the assessment requires an in-person session, and in particular, a session attended by all the library personnel at the same time. Do other City departments see value in this? If so, rather than the whole Library Department going at one time, could groups of employees from a mix of City departments attend together so no entire department would have to be shut down for a day? If the other departments don’t see value in this, why not?