Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPUBLIC COMMENTSJanuary 17, 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 December 19, 2016 Board of Library Trustees Meeting The following corrections are suggested: Handwritten page 5 (= page 2 of minutes), vote: “ABSTENTIONS: Watkins (on minutes)” [I assume this was an abstention just on the minutes, and not on the entire Consent Calendar] Handwritten page 6, paragraph 4: “Chair Johnson-Tucker commented regarding community concern about additional value engineering and felt bids would should be submitted prior to any value engineering being performed.” [?, I believe this was a request rather than a statement of fact] Handwritten page 7, paragraph 1: “Chair Johnson-Tucker met with Library Services Director Hetherton, Liz Ann Lizanne Witte and Dorothy Larson regarding receipt of an updated feasibility study in January.” [?, the Witte donor list has: “Matthew & Lizanne Witte”] Handwritten page 8, paragraphs 1 & 2: “Chair Johnson-Tucker expressed concern that a policy of 12 years of age would be constantly violated. … In response to Chair Johnson- Tucker's request, Board Member Watkins concurred with 12 being the right age. … Vice Chair Ray felt 12 was a good age. ... Board Member King was happy with an age of 12.” [It’s unclear if the first sentence refers to the policy regarding children using the library during normal hours without adult supervision or to the policy about children left alone at closing. In either event, the remaining part needs to be reworked to reveal what the Chair’s request to the other trustees was. As it is, the chair appears to be saying 12 is a bad choice for some policy and the other trustees appear to “concur” 12 is a good choice. That makes no sense.] Handwritten page 8, paragraph 4, sentence 2: “There was a minor typographical error which he pointed out on Board Member Watkins' copy.” Handwritten page 8, paragraph 6: “In reply to Chair Johnson-Tucker Johnson-Tucker’s inquiry, Library Services Director Hetherton concurred with revising the first sentence under paragraph C of the policy.” Item 4. Expenditure Status Report On handwritten page 27, do the Foundation items shown as “in progress” but with no amounts listed as expended as of 12/28/16 (such as the Daily Pilot digitization project) mean they have not started yet? January 17, 2017, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 Item 6. Corona del Mar Branch Project Update The minutes from December (Item 1, above) predicted the City Council would have new bids to consider at their February 14, 2017, meeting. While that remains possible, it does not seem realistic to me. According to the City’s PlanetBids site, the original request for proposals (the ones considered as Item 17 at the Council’s December 13, 2016, meeting, denoted as “Fire Station No. 6 Apparatus Bay - Invitation C8136-2”) was posted on November 7 with responses due on December 1, 2016. As of January 16, 2017, it appears no new RFP has been posted. Assuming a longer period for responses is being allowed this time, it would not seem the bids could be opened before mid-February. At the City Council’s January 15, 2017, Planning Session, Chair Johnson-Tucker provided an excellent oral defense of the CdM library project. However, Team Newport supporter Bob McCaffrey appeared to suggest the project was unnecessary. And, due to both time and agenda constraints, the Mayor deferred discussion of Facilities Financial Plan priorities. It remains unclear if that eventual discussion will include revisiting commitments to previously- approved expenditures such as the budget for the fibrary. Item 7. Budget Operating Review It is not entirely clear from the report how the $40 thousand typo involving the Mariners Branch electric bill in the current year’s budget has been handled, or how it will affect the library’s requests for the coming year. But it raises the question of how expenses for the CdM branch in both the current year and the coming one are being dealt with. If the branch is not expected to be in operation for all, or a substantial part, of either of those years, wouldn’t that severely alter the projected expenses? Item 8. Waiver of Council Policy A-5, Fund Raising/Contracts by City Boards, Commissions or Committees I understand neither the rationale for Council Policy A-5, nor the Trustees’ reason for wanting an exception from it. There are already two existing non-profits that raise money for NBPL projects, apparently in accordance with the policy. How is the wish for a potential lecture auditorium different from past projects? In those cases, didn’t the outside organizations coordinate the collection of private donations? Why wouldn’t that work here? Can’t they set up an auditorium fund? This request for an exception to Policy A-5 would suggest the Board wishes to bypass those organizations and directly raise whatever supplemental funds might be needed, presumably in the form of individual private donations directly to the BLT or the City treasury. Is that really what is intended? January 17, 2017, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 Item 9. Children in the Library As a general comment, while the policy takes pains to distinguish children under twelve from those over twelve in Sections A and B, in those and elsewhere it uses the terms “children” and “adults” without defining the age at which one makes the transition from “child” to “adult.” Does an age need to be specified (Section C suggests it might be 18)? More specific comments: 1. In the opening paragraph, “while parents or caregivers are outside the library” would seem better as “while parents or caregivers are not in attendance” or something of that sort (since they might be “inside” the library, but not watching their kids). 2. At the end of the same paragraph, isn’t “in the library” encompassed within “on library premises”? Why is it necessary to say the first when the second is said? 3. Section C is much improved from the earlier draft! 4. Regarding Section D: a. The first sentence (saying adults are never allowed) is contradicted by the second (saying they are allowed with permission). The contradiction could be removed and the intent made more clear and concise by combining the two sentences as follows: “Adults who are neither accompanying or assisting a child may use the Children’s Room or restroom at the Central Library or the Children’s areas at the branches only with the express permission of Library staff (for example, to locate and obtain children’s materials).” b. However clearly expressed, there is reason to wonder why such a policy is needed. i. Does it address a real, existing problem? Or an imagined one? Are unaccompanied adults monopolizing, harming or misusing the children’s materials? Are unaccompanied adults intimidating or annoying the children? Are there even unaccompanied adults in the children’s areas? And of those that are accompanied by children, how does staff know the adult is a legitimate caregiver? ii. In Los Angeles, the LA Times has recently editorialized against a similar policy proposed by Councilman Mitch O’Farrell, criminalizing unaccompanied adults in children’s areas of public parks. iii. The policy would likely be found unconstitutional if it were selectively enforced (for example, only against adults a librarian thinks don’t “look right”). iv. To avoid a perception of age bias, one might ask if there is, or needs to be, a reciprocal policy banning unaccompanied children from the non- children’s areas of the library? If there was, I would be against both. January 17, 2017, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4 Item 10. Newport Beach Public Library Wireless "WiFi" Internet Access Policy 1. This seems like quite a lot of material for a splash page. Is the expectation that it will all be displayed? Or is it going to be one of those “check here to indicate you accept the terms” sort of things, with a link to the full text for those who wish to read it? 2. The statement in the opening sentence that “The Newport Beach Public Library ("Library”) offers free wireless "WiFi" access to the lnternet during normal Library business hours” is contrary to what the Director promised at the Board’s December meeting. See handwritten page 9 of the present agenda packet, where it says: “Wi-Fi would be available between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.” (presumably 365 days a year). Has that promise been withdrawn? 3. The threat, in Section 1, of sanctions for not “following” the policy seems a bit strange since with the exception of Section 5 (which seems to have its own sanctions) the policy consists not of things the user could violate, but rather entirely of disclaimers informing users that the City takes no responsibility for the many possible adverse consequences of using the service. Imposing sanctions would make more sense if the policy imposed duties on the users that could be violated (such as not using the WiFi connection for illegal purposes), but, with the exception of Section 5, I see none. 4. The intent and context of the “Notice: Warning of Copyright Restrictions” at the bottom of the policy is quite baffling to me. a. Is this part of Section 5? If so, why is it set apart from it? b. Copyright issues seem related to the content offered by the library (and more generally through the internet as made available by the library), and would seem more a part of the Library’s Internet Use Policy and educational outreach efforts than about how one accesses the content (that is, by wireless or through a non- wireless cable-connected library workstation). c. I have no idea where the “posts” and “links” the paragraph refers to are, or how library staff proposes “to delete or disable any post or link” it feels violates copyright law. Will staff search users’ personal devices while they’re in the library and more generally scour the web for things it believes may have come from a NBPL user? And how will it prove the offending material was obtained using the library’s WiFi connection (as opposed to the many other routes by which it may have gotten there)? That is, will IT be continuously monitoring and keeping a record of all the information sent to devices connected via the WiFi service?