Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNov 20 2017 JM CommentsNovember 20, 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 October 16, 2017 Board of Library Trustees Meeting The following very minor change is suggested: Handwritten page 5 (= page 2 of minutes): Item VI.A.6. (“Mariners Branch Report”), paragraph 2, sentence 2: “From October 2016 through September 2017, the Library circulated more than 350,000 items and answered 43,000 reference questions.” Also, on handwritten page 9 (= page 6 of minutes), in reading Item 13 (“Witte Lectures Committee Liaison Report”) I have this comment: I have only recently noticed that the Library Foundation has posted what appears to be a complete set of “podcasts” of past Witte lectures. I think this is a wonderful resource for those who lacked the money, time or for whatever reason were unable to participate in the live events – as well as for those who may be weighing whether they want to attend a future one. I remain unclear as to the extent the Witte Lectures raise money to support the library, or are, instead, a kind of substitute, shadow library service operating somewhat out of the library’s control, but the availability of audio of the programs aligns with my notion that library services should be available equally to all, not just to the elite. Finally, I might note that posting of the present BLT meeting materials in a non-searchable, PDF page “image only” format makes them unnecessarily difficult to review. Item 4. Expenditure Status Report While this new report may be fine, I do not recall the Board ever having publicly reviewed anything clearly identified as a year-end close-out revenue and expenditure report for FY17. The closest the Board has on its monitoring list is the June “Financial Report Comparison of Beginning Budget to End of the Year Amended Budget.” A year end review, after the accounts and expenditures have had time to settle, seems at least equally important to me, particularly in terms of planning future budgets. In the absence of such a report, the Trustees may again wish to explore the City’s new Open Budget Portal, which provides them an alternate and independent way to view the Department’s actual expenditures compared to budget. To see how last year’s expenses compared to budget, go to the Operating Budget and select 2017. Clicking on the bars breaks them down to a finer level. For example, clicking on Branch Operations shows CdM and Balboa were a little over budget in 2017, while Central and Mariners were under. To see “year-to-date” revenues and expenses (as of the most recently uploaded data file, currently Sept. 11, 2017) against the current budget, original or revised, select 2018. November 20, 2017, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 Item 6. Circulation Policy Review I appreciate Library staff’s clear explanation of what they are proposing to change in the Circulation Policy, and why. I think an explanation of other changes they may have considered, but rejected, would have been helpful as well. As would have been calling the Board’s attention to areas of this policy that might merit Board review even though staff sees no need for changes. For example, under Policy 1.0 (“Library Customer Cards”), shouldn’t it say somewhere that the Library’s commitment is to provide the cards at no charge? Also, the term “guest card” is used without, as best I can tell, any explanation of what that term means or why they are not available to persons under 18 years of age (similarly, the larger policy document later refers in a couple of places to a “homebound” program without defining what that is). Policy 1.03 does not make clear if the replacement of a lost card involves a fee (and if so, where it is specified), nor how it differs from applying for a new card. Policy 1.04 could make clear (if that is the case) that there is no charge for a “computer use only card,” and also if there is a California residency requirement to be eligible for one. Policy 2.06: Aren’t their rental Blu-rays as well as DVDs? Policy 3.05 clearly deserves its own line, but is currently hidden at the end of the Policy 3.04 sentence. Policy 3.06: Again, are there rental Blu-rays, as well as DVDs? Also, although the policy says there are no renewals, the $1 daily fine for non-return (Policy 9.02) appears to be identical to the $1 one-day rental fee (Policy 9.01), so although “renewals” may not be allowed, not returning the item is economically equivalent to renewing it for a day, with no particular penalty. And after 10 days (when the maximum fine has accrued) it would appear the patron can keep the rental DVD (or Blu-ray?) for no additional charge until returned, whenever. Given our policies, what is the motivation for people to return these after the one day of no-renewable rental? Similarly, on handwritten page 38, under Policy 7.0 (“Confidentiality of Customer Records”), does the last sentence (“This section shall not apply to statistical reports of patron use nor to records of fines collected by the library.”) mean that reports of fines collected can include personal identification of those who paid the fines? Or are those reports, too, limited to statistical summaries with no individual patron identification? Either way, is this a state requirement, or something the Board has discretion over? Finally, I would think lists of fines the Library assessed but was unable to collect would be of as much or more interest than those actually “collected.” On handwritten page 39, I understand that the maximum fine for overdue DVDs and Blu-rays is being reduced to $10 (the amount that will accrue in 40 days at $0.25 per day). I am not sure, in the same section, I understand the rationale behind the $5.00 maximum fine for unreturned paperbacks and periodicals and the $1,200 maximum fine for an unreturned laptop. The following section, Policy 9.03, says that if the item is never returned, the fines paid will be November 20, 2017, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 applied toward the replacement and processing costs, and the replacement cost for each of these items is set equal to the fine. As I read it, this means there is actually a strong disincentive to return such an overdue item: faced with a situation in which you will be billed the identical amount whether you keep the item or return it, a rational person would keep the item, since they are going to pay for it either way. As long as fines are used to defray the replacement cost, it would seem to me to be in the Library’s interest to ensure that maximum fines are always substantially below the anticipated replacement cost. By doing so, it would always be in the patron’s economic interest to return the item, however late, and pay the fine rather than keep the item and let the Library use their already accrued fine to replace it (note: On closer reading, the holder of an overdue paperback or periodical can avoid a $3 processing fee by returning the item, rather than keeping it. But it does not appear one avoids any processing fees by returning an overdue laptop. One also has to wonder if there isn’t an alarm mechanism to warn staff of people attempting to take laptops offsite, contrary to policy, which would seem to be the only way to rack up the maximum overdue fine.). On that same page, it might be noted under Policy 9.02 (“Fines for Overdue Materials”), that Audio Books and ILL Materials have a maximum fine of $10, but no specified daily fine accrual rate. Nor do unreturned Audio Books appear to have an anticipated replacement cost. It may be noted that per Policy 2.02, most Audio Books seem to be regarded as a subset of “General Materials” (for which daily rates, maxima and replacement costs are specified). Is there a reason they are being called out separately? Regarding the demise of the apparently once-popular “Book Club in a Bag” program, to what extent is the decline in popularity due to not keeping the selections current? Additionally, given that the City Council/City Clerk no longer maintain copies of most the Library Policies, the Board may wish to consider bringing a greater level of order to them, by such things as numbering those it wishes to maintain, and creating a place for the overarching Library Policy/Mission Statement, which seems no longer to exist. Finally, although it is not being proposed to be changed in the current revision, I continue to think the non-refundable $5 charge for making interlibrary loan requests (under Policy 9.04, “Other Fees”) is too high, and discourages use of what should be a much more easily accessible service. That charge seems especially high when one considers that City and County residents can make the same requests, less conveniently but at no cost at all, through the OC Public Library. This seems to me to be one of the few areas in which, contrary to its otherwise excellent service model, the NBPL is distinctly letting its patrons down. Item 7. Monthly Financial Report "Library Expenditures" Overview Near the middle of handwritten page 48, I think the statement that “The City establishes lnternal Service Funds to account for any activity that provides goods or services to other departments on a cost-reimbursement basis” might more accurately say something like “The City uses lnternal Service Funds to account for any activity in which the Library receives goods or services from another department on a cost-reimbursement basis.” November 20, 2017, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4 This might prompt the converse question of whether the Library Services Department itself provides goods or services to any other City departments, and if so how it is reimbursed for them (for example, use of the Friends Room or Media Lab for training). More generally, the monthly summary report presented to the Board does not give any detail on expenditures vs. budget for the nine accounting divisions within the Library Services Department (Admin, Tech Processing, the four branches, Literacy, Foundation and Friends – as well as a roughly $300,000 “Cultural and Arts” budget whose position within this scheme is not entirely clear). As a result, while the overall, combined result may appear reasonable, the Board would likely be unaware if a particular branch or function was running significantly over or under budget. Finally, given its Charter-mandated role of overseeing Library administration, it would seem appropriate for the Board to ask to see and review the Library’s monthly “warrant list,” which is to say, the list of checks written against the Library’s accounts. Although Newport Beach City staff has long resisted presenting such detailed information to the City Council (at least publicly), the information is, in principle, public, and many other agencies regularly review and “approve” their staff’s warrant list (including a breakdown of credit card charges) as a consent calendar item. There may be little question about most of the checks, but there could be, it may stimulate discussion and it adds a needed layer of voluntary transparency. Indeed, even within the Library Services Department of Newport Beach, the City Arts Commission sees a monthly expense report, which is essentially a list of checks written against the various “Cultural Arts Division” sub-accounts.