HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic CommentsSeptember 18, 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 August 21, 2017 Board of Library Trustees
Meeting
The following very minor changes are suggested:
Handwritten page 4 (= page 1 of minutes): Item II. ROLL CALL, under Staff Present, last line:
“Senior IT Analyst Avery Meglinti Maglinti” [see staff directory and Item 6 on page 3]
Handwritten page 6 (= page 3 of minutes): Item 7, paragraph 1, sentence 2: “Staff is
reimagining spaces at Central Branch Library to increase capacity.”
Item 4. Expenditure Status Report
The draft minutes for August 21 indicated a promise was made to present the final expenditure
report for FY17 at the present meeting (see minutes for Item 4 on draft minutes page 2,
handwritten page 5 of the present agenda packet). The present report does not appear to be the
fulfillment of that promise.
In the absence of such a report, or simply as a matter of general interest, the Trustees may wish to
explore the City’s new Open Budget Portal, which provides an alternate and independent way to
view the Department’s actual expenditures (and revenues) compared to budget. To see last year’s
expenses, go to the Operating Budget and select 2017. To see “year-to-date” (although it’s not
immediately obvious how current they are) expenses against the current budget, original or
revised, select 2018. Clicking on the resulting histogram bars breaks them down to a finer level.
For example, clicking on Branch Operations shows CdM and Balboa expenses were a little over
budget in 2017, while Central and Mariners were under. Clicking on the latter bars will pinpoint the
exact line items that were over budget. The Open Budget Portal also allows the Library operating
budget, expenses and revenues to be downloaded in spreadsheet form for further study and
manipulation.
Item 8. Facility Needs for Central Library and the Mariners and Balboa
Branch Libraries
The idea of creating room for library expansion at Mariners Branch by moving the Recreation and
Senior Services activities from the present Jorgensen (note spelling) Room to a new free-standing
community room built near the Jorgensen Room’s original location by the park restrooms is
brilliant. The chance of immediate funding seems slim, but it’s a goal to work toward and it might be
sold as a kind of substitute for the now-shelved proposal to build a full-sized West Newport
Community Center. It seems more doable than getting approval for expanding the current library
footprint into the park.
September 18, 2017, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 2 of 3
It might be noted that policies B-5 and I-7 for use of the present Jorgensen Room are among the
few library policies the City Council has chosen to retain control of (see non-agenda comment at
end of this document).
Item 9. Corona del Mar Project Update
While the report on the status of the short-term improvements is good, it misses the obvious
question the public is most interested in: What has become of the plans for rebuilding? Apparently
sufficient money is allocated in the budget, but has any progress been made toward awarding
construction contracts?
Item 10. Review of Request to Close Libraries for Staff Training
This sounds like a better plan than rather arbitrarily closing for the whole day on December 7 for
the Clifton StrengthsFinder exercise. However, after the installation of a new Integrated Library
System, I thought staff needed at least a half day to train on the new system and confirm it is truly
functional and working as expected before reopening. Is it thought staff can complete the ILS
switch-over and career training in a single day?
Item 11. Newport Beach Public Library Staffing
The report is helpful for disclosing the array of people required to make the Library Services
Department work.
Since the hours worked by the many part-time employees are difficult to guess, the following
numbers derived from “Full Time Equivalent employees” by Division, taken from the current year’s
City Budget Detail, are probably closer to the number of people required to actually operate the
various facilities on a given day (recognizing the FTE’s are presumably based on a 40 hour work
week, so the numbers working at a given time need to be corrected for operations running a
different number of hours, by correcting by a factor equal to 40 divided by the actual hours open,
as shown -- although the hours shown are the public ones, only, and hence underestimate the
correct ones for staffing).
FY2017-2018 City Budget for Library Services
Full Time Equivalent positions by division
Division FTE's
Hours open
Average number working
at one time
Admin 8.45
40
8.45
Tech 3.00
40
3.00
Balboa 3.63
63
2.30
CdM 2.48
51
1.95
Mariners 11.77
71
6.63
Central 28.00
71
15.77
Literacy 0.50
40
0.50
total: 57.83
total working at peak: 38.61
September 18, 2017, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 3 of 3
It would be interesting to know if these numbers match the Department’s staffing estimates, and
also who pays the personnel costs for the staff manning the three concierge locations.
The Trustees may also wish clarification of their role in setting the staffing levels, in particular, their
ability to add or remove positions. Staffing is presumably integral to the library budget, which,
under City Charter Section 708, requires Council approval. And additionally, even if changes were
cost neutral, under Charter Section 601, it is the City Council which “shall provide for the number,
titles, qualifications, powers, duties and compensation of all officers and employees.”
Item VIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
In view of the City Council’s actions on August 8, 2017, (agenda Item 18) to modify one and repeal
most library policies, I continue to think the Trustees have an obligation to go over the full array of
library policies and explicitly re-enact those former “Council policies” that it wishes to continue in
force.
For example, the former Library Service Policy, which, although apparently not featured on the
library website, served since 1984 as a kind of mission statement for the library department, has
been reduced to a quite different Council Policy I-1. One might think the Trustees would want to
reassert their vision and post it on the library website.
Meanwhile, those polices posted on the library’s policy page, to the extent they copied Council-
adopted policies as reflected in the revision dates and policy numbers, have been repealed as far
as the City Council is concerned. One might think the Trustees would want to review and re-enact
those policies, as well, if it is the Board’s intention they remain active.
Incidentally, for those interested in the history of the City’s policies, the City Clerk has recently
created a portal for posting past (and current) versions of policies in the Council Policy Manual. As
implied above, due to the Council’s action on August 8, most of those relevant to the Library Board
are now found in the Policy Repealed/Ended/No Longer in Use folder.
My understanding is these repeals are not really an attempt to abolish the policies, but rather part
of an effort to ensure the City’s Boards and Commissions are given their proper latitude.
As a side note to this effort by the Council to restore to the Library Board the power to
independently set library administrative policy that was given to it at its creation (by Ordinance No.
166 on June 6, 1920, pursuant to the 1901/1909 California Library Act) and continued under City
Charter Section 708, there remains uncertainty over the shared responsibility not just for
personnel, but for financing in general. A particularly puzzling example is that while the Council has
been pursuing an agenda of moving the City’s many fees and charges (such as sewer rates) out of
the Municipal Code and into a consolidated Master Fee Schedule that could be adjusted by
resolution, when the Board last presented a schedule of Library Fees to the Council for their
review, the Council took the opposite tack and “ratified” the schedule as part of Ordinance No.
2016-14 (see Section 4 on page 7). Since that predated the Council’s current move to divest itself
of dickering with library policy, it is unclear if this means the Library Board cannot alter any of the
ratified fees without asking the Council to pass a new ordinance.