Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Library Trustees 2019-09-10 Agenda SAN RAFAEL PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES AGENDA Tuesday, September 10, 2019 6:00 P.M. San Rafael Library, 1100 E Street CALL TO ORDER • Roll Call AGENDA AMENDMENTS MINUTES 1. Approve regular meeting minutes of August 13, 2019 MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC 2. Introductions/Awards/Recognitions/Presentations A. Presentation by Jill Tokutomi, Librarian II, and Teen Advisory Board Leader Luz Diaz 3. Public Comment from the audience regarding items not listed on the agenda. Speakers are encouraged to limit comments to 3 minutes. MATTERS BEFORE THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES If necessary to assure completion of the following items, the Chairperson may establish time limits for the presentations by individual speakers. 4. Discussion of Library Fines 5. Update on Department Integration BOARD REPORTS AND COMMENTS 6. Other brief reports on any meetings, conferences, and/or seminars attended by the Board members. STAFF COMMENTS 7. A. Measure D Parcel Tax Committee B. Friends of the San Rafael Public Library C. San Rafael Public Library Foundation D. MARINet Board Library Board of Trustees Agenda Page 2 of 2 E.NorthNet Board F.City Librarian Update NEXT MEETING: October 8, 2019 FUTURE AGENDA TOPICS ADJOURNMENT Notice Any records relating to an agenda item, received by a majority or more of the Board less than 72 hours before the meeting, shall be available for inspection in the Library, 1100 E Street. Sign Language interpreters and assistive listening devices may be requested by calling (415) 485-3066 (voice), emailing Lindsay.lara@cityofsanrafael.org or using the California Telecommunications Relay Service by dialing “711”, at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Copies of documents are available in accessible formats upon request. Public transportation is available through Golden Gate Transit, Line 22 or 23. Paratransit is available by calling Whistlestop. Wheels at (415) 454-0964. To allow individuals with environmental illness or multiple chemical sensitivity to attend the meeting/hearing, individuals are requested to refrain from wearing scented products. 1 LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES DRAFT MINUTES _____________________________________________________________________________________________ San Rafael Library – 1100 E Street, San Rafael, CA August 13, 2019 – 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER Chair Libresco called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. Roll Call Board Members Present: Josh Libresco, Jaimi Cortes, Claudia Fromm, Beverly Rose, and Robert Ross Board Members Absent: Catherine Sumser Staff Present: Henry Bankhead, Assistant Library and Recreation Director, Susan Andrade-Wax, Library and Recreation Director, Jinder Banwait, Senior Administrative Assistant, Lea Aschkenas, Librarian II, and Robert Epstein, City Attorney 2 AGENDA AMENDMENTS Chair Libresco welcomed Mr. Epstein and asked the Board Members if they had any amendments to the agenda. Board Member Cortes said she assumed the Library fines discussion would be on the agenda. Chair Libresco shared comments about the agenda. He stated that since the last meeting, he, Library staff, and Mr. Epstein has discussed some areas of confusion regarding the agenda. His understanding is that the Board Members can suggest items for the age nda and may even vote on them, but that it was up to the Library staff to decide what goes on the agenda. He expressed that he too thought the Library fines discussion would be on the agenda, but that according to Mr. Epstein, it was ultimately the Library staff’s decision. Board Member Cortes said that she was very confused about the agenda. She said that her understanding from the previous meeting was that Board Members would choose topics for future agendas and that there were multiple topics the Board Members wanted to see on this meeting’s agenda. Mr. Epstein responded and explained that the agenda setting, who decides what is discussed and when, is a common issue he has encountered in many public meetings. He explained that there is a distinction between the Library Board and other City appointed advisory Boards and Commissions. For example, Boards such as City Council and Planning Design Review have authority to make decisions that bind the City. The Library Board’s purpose is to provide advice and input to Library staff and the City. The Library staff creates the agenda based on their view of what their priorities are, what they need input on or help with, and the interest of the Board Members. Mr. Epstein continued and explained the two options th e Board Members have if they disagree with Library staff or the City’s agenda setting policy. Board Member Cortes clarified that this isn’t about Library staff judgement, but that the Library fines discussion was on the agenda at the previous meeting and that the Board Members all agreed to include it on this meeting’s agenda. Mr. Epstein replied that he understands that some Board Members left the previous meeting earlier than others and that the discussion couldn’t begin or continue further. He explai ned that it was the Library staff’s judgement that the discussion would not be included in this meeting’s agenda, even though some or all Board Members may disagree with that judgement. Board Member Cortes asked why it wouldn’t be on this meeting’s agenda if it was on last meeting’s agenda. She explained that this is a transparency issue, if the public was told it would be on the agenda and it isn’t, how is that transparent to the public. 3 Mr. Epstein continued and explained that in his view and that of t he City Clerk, that any advice given by the Board in the previous meeting is not binding. He explained that the Library staff is understanding that the Board is interested in discussing Library fines at a future meeting and will take that into consideration. Mr. Epstein explained that if any Board Members believe Library staff are not performing their function properly or are unhappy about something, they cannot direct Library staff in the performance of their duty. Board Members are free at any time to go to City Council, who appoints them, to tell them their needs are not being served. This can happen during a personal meeting or during open public time at any City Council meeting. Board Member Cortes clarified that no one is complaining about Mr. Bankhe ad or other Library staff. Mr. Epstein replied that he heard a complaint that an item was not on the agenda for this meeting. Board Member Cortes reiterated that it is not a Library staff issue, perhaps Mr. Bankhead forgot to add an item to the agenda. Mr. Epstein said that he’d let Mr. Bankhead speak for himself. Board Member Cortes explained once again that promising to have something on the agenda for an upcoming meeting and then not have it on the agenda is a lack of transparency. Mr. Bankhead explained that Chair Libresco had stated that we should add the Library fines discussion to the next agenda. Mr. Bankhead said the Board Members wanted to see this item on a future agenda in a more detailed report, like the one three years ago when this t opic was first introduced. Library staff wanted to give themselves more time to provide a fuller account of the current Library fines situation. Board Member Cortes asked whether that was in the minutes. Chair Libresco replied, no they just made the decision by themselves without asking us at all. Mr. Bankhead reiterated that the Library staff thought that the Board Members would appreciate a more detailed report and a fuller discussion about the subject at a future meeting. He explained that this item was on the last agenda as a brief explanation due to an article related to the subject being in the Marin Independent Journal. The purpose of it being on the agenda previously was to inform the Board Members that the Library staff were aware of the article and had dealt with something similar in the past. 4 Board Member Cortes emphasized that issues surrounding the Board agenda has never been a Library staff issue. She explained that she has been a Board Memb er for two or more years and has never pointed the finger at any Library staff, that both Ms. Houghton (previous Library Director) and Mr. Bankhead have always provided great information. She continued and said there has never been an issue, but this new process has been an issue. Board Member Cortes expressed that everyone is making a big deal out of things, that the City Clerk is attending our meetings and now the City Attorney. She clarified that it’s not a Library staff issue, or punitive, or a non-positive, but a conversation. She also stated that she didn’t know that the Board Members had asked for a more detailed report as she had left early during the previous meeting. Mr. Epstein reiterated what Mr. Bankhead had stated that in Mr. Bankhead’s judgement it would be more helpful to the City and Library staff to bring this matter back at a subsequent meeting in a more thorough fashion. He continued and explained that this is not a transparency issue since having an agenda is transparency. Mr. Epstein explained that the reason the City Clerk and he are attending the meetings is to ensure consistency among all the City Boards and Commissions. He explained that Mr. Bankhead made the judgement to bring the Library fines discussion back later with more deta ils and for a fuller discussion. Board Member Cortes said that she and other Board Members would appreciate having some type of open communication as they have had in years past about agenda setting so that they are able to provide their input and feedba ck. Chair Libresco expressed to Mr. Bankhead that the Board Members are not trying to tell him how to do his job but do appreciate transparency and communication. He asked if Mr. Bankhead going forward can communicate with the Board Members when he is un able to include something the Board Members want to see on the agenda. He expressed that he wants to make sure the Library staff hear the Board Members’ ideas, that providing ideas is what the Board Members signed up for. Mr. Epstein explained how Board Members can communicate outside of public meetings. He said that Mr. Bankhead can send an email but that there cannot be a dialogue about agenda setting of any kind, which would violate the Brown Act. Mr. Epstein recommended Mr. Bankhead blind carbon copy and make himself the recipient when communicating with the Board Members outside of public meetings. Chair Libresco confirmed that that is what Mr. Bankhead has been doing. Chair Libresco asked Mr. Bankhead to inform the Board Members of any items that were planned on being on the agenda, but will not be, before the agenda is finalized. 5 Mr. Bankhead said he would notify the Board Members. Mr. Bankhead also clarified that removing the item from the agenda was not to avoid t he issue, but that he wanted to bring the item back in a more substantive way. Board Member Ross replied that the Board Members agree, but that they just wanted the communication and to know that the item would be brought back. Chair Libresco stated that there are two other items that were expected to be on the agenda and are not. The first item that the Board Members expressed in the past should be a standing item on the agenda is an update on the New Library Facilities process. Chair Libresco shared with the Board Members and the public that the New Library Facilities Report will be going to City Council on Monday, September 16. Chair Libresco shared the other item not on the agenda, the discussion about having the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of Library Board meetings. He said that the City Attorney has responded on this issue and that Chair Libresco, being the Chair, he can make that decision. Chair Libresco announced that he has decided not to have the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of Library Board meetings. Chair Libresco suggested something as an alternative to the Pledge of Allegiance, perhaps a paragraph from a book the Board Members may be reading. Board Member Ross asked why the standing agenda item of providing an update on the New Library Facilities Project was not on the agenda. Ms. Andrade-Wax explained that the format of the agenda does not allow for old business, new business. Items placed on the agenda for the Board’s review and consideration are placed under “Matters Before the Board”. The Board Members can provide a report under Board Report and Comments if they have attended any meetings and the staff can respond to those reports. Chair Libresco recommended adding this standing agenda item under Staff Comments. Mr. Bankhead reiterated that Board Members can provide information from any meetings they may have attended relating to a certain topic during the Board Reports and Comments agenda item. Library staff can then respond to those comments. Board Member Cortes asked where an item such as a Noll & Tam Architect update would fall on the agenda. Mr. Bankhead replied, under Staff Comments, City Librarian Update. 6 MINUTES 1. Approve regular meeting minutes of July 9, 2019 Board Member Cortes asked whether an update on the Library and Community Services merger will be a future agenda item? Mr. Bankhead replied that the topic falls under Board Reports and Comments. Chair Libresco recommended referring to a Board Member as Board Member and not Commissioner. Chair Libresco also expressed that it was ludicrous that it was reported in the minutes that a Board Member was a few minutes late in arriving to the last meeting. He said that he found that to be very offensive to Board Members. Chair Libresco shared that Mr. Epstein explained that it is important to note who is and isn’t here when there is a specific vote so that it can be part of the record. Chair Libresco explained that it is irrelevant when someone arrived or left when there is a vo te and that childishness should be removed from the minutes. Mr. Epstein clarified that not only is it important to note who is present during votes, but also who is present during discussion and deliberation. It is possible to be late and catch enough of the discussion to be able to vote. Recording arrival and departure is consistent with how public meetings operate for all types of Boards and Commissions. Board Member Ross asked if the time should be recorded as the Board Members are moving down the agenda. Mr. Epstein replied that the Board Members should be aware of who is at the meetings and when. He said that it is not intended to be ludicrous, childish, or to shame anyone. Chair Libresco proceeded to apologize to Board Member Sumser and hoped that she would return to the next meeting. Mr. Bankhead informed the Board Members that Board Member Sumser is absent due to a planned vacation. He also asked Chair Libresco if Board Member Sumser communicated to him that she felt shamed. Chair Libresco continued going through the agenda. 7 A motion was made by Board Member Rose, seconded by Board Member Fromm, to approve the minutes of the July 9, 2019 meeting. The motion was approved unanimously. MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC 2. Introductions/Awards/Recognitions/Presentations Ms. Aschkenas introduced herself and presented on programs at the Pickleweed Library. She shared information about adult and children Summer Reading Program related events. Events such as biking trips, parks tours, knitting classes, Valentine’s Day card-making workshop, crafts, and author visits. She also shared that some Pickleweed Library Staff have received extensive training to provide immigration an d social services to the Canal Community. 3. Public Comment from the audience regarding items not listed on the agenda None MATTERS BEFORE THE COMMISSION 4. Mr. Bankhead shared information about two Library electronic resources that the Library currently subscribes to, Lynda.com and Kanopy. He explained that traditionally Library electronic resources comprised of PDF or HTML format magazine and newspaper content. However, recently the trend has been going towards interactive electronic resources. Resources such as language learning, tutoring, online video streaming, learning platforms, Discover&Go museum passes, and RBDigital magazines. These types of resources tend to be more on the expensive side. LinkedIn Learning (Lynda.com) is the premiere online learning resource for libraries and it provides a very granular and extensive suite of courses. Patrons can create an online account and learn the courses at their own pace. LinkedIn Learning is also the single most expensive product the Library offers. Lynda.com was acquired by LinkedIn, which was acquired by Microsoft. Since then, privacy concerns have risen in addition to the change of their service model. Patrons will no longer be able to anonymously log into to LinkedIn Learning with a library card number and a password. The new platform requires users to have an existing LinkedIn account or create a new account to access LinkedIn Learning. This has raised concerns in the profession. Mr. Bankhead explained 8 that maintaining patron privacy in using Library services is sacred, that it is in the ALA (American Library Association) Bill of Rights. He said that the State Library is urging libraries not to engage with companies that require their own user profiles. Chair Libresco asked whether the Library can opt out if the company changes their user agreement. Mr. Bankhead replied that the company will prorate a refund to the Library. Mr. Bankhead shared information about Kanopy, an online streaming service that provides high quality documentary and independent films. This service is provided in partnership with the County Library and is a pay-per-use model. We don’t pay one price like LinkedIn Learning and receive unlimited access annually. The pay-per-use model deducts the balance that we pre-pay Kanopy each time a patron views a title. Kanopy service is becoming popular with our patrons, and over time, the cost can outpace what our budget allows. Some libraries have opted out of Kanopy due to the ir inflexibility of allowing libraries to use their budget model. For example, reducing the number of plays is not allowed. LinkedIn wants to increase their business by using LinkedIn Learning, which doesn’t agree with library privacy policies. Library professionals and organizations have recommended going against LinkedIn’s new model. There are other alternative products available, which Library staff are currently researching. Some of the alternatives are listed on the accompanying report. Board Member Cortes asked about LinkedIn Learning usage statistics. Mr. Bankhead replied that the service is not being used as much as the Library had anticipated. Mr. Bankhead continued, he said that Kanopy is aggressive in their marketing tactics as they email registered users reminding them of how many plays they have remaining. This tactic increases the cost to the library and is not a good partnership model. Kan opy is not using Library database to reach out to patrons, they are using the information the patrons provided during registration. LinkedIn is willing to refund the Library acknowledging they have changed their service model. The Library would be saving approximately $16,000 by canceling both services and ongoing have $23,000 to use toward other services. Board Member Rose asked how the savings would be utilized. Mr. Bankhead replied that the Library’s single most urgent need for electronic resources is Overdrive eBooks. There are currently long list of people waiting for eBooks, audiobooks, and some videos. Overdrive is the most popular service for this type of 9 media and is rapidly growing. The Library is constantly behind on funding this service. Mr. Bankhead shared that he would like to meet this existing need before providing a new service but is interested in doing both. Board Member Ross said he has been involved with Lynda.com since its inception, until recently when it was sold to a private equity firm and then to LinkedIn. He emphasized that there are other services available like Lynda.com but are not of the same quality and quantity as Lynda.com. He explained the concern here is that Microsoft and LinkedIn will know what Library users are wa tching. Though that is a concern, they are using that data to understand what user interests are so that they can expand the content related to those interests. Board Member Ross continued and shared his concern that though there may be a funding and privacy issue, is the trade-off worth cancelling the service. He pointed out that people use Lynda.com for professional development. Mr. Bankhead explained that the intent is not to cancel the service until LinkedIn changes it user policy requiring a LinkedIn profile. He said that the privacy issue is the central issue for libraries. He shared an example of Amazon marketing to library users based on what they were reading through Kindle. Many libraries didn’t want to use Overdrive for privacy reasons or left the decision of sharing information with Amazon to the user. The conversation has resurfaced, should libraries leave it up to the user whether they want to share their information with LinkedIn. Mr. Bankhead explained that LinkedIn could limit the content to increase user privacy. However local and national association ethics recommend prohibiting even limited access to user information. They want to protect user privacy in using any library resources. Libraries don’t want to put users in the position of bargaining between privacy and content. Board Member Ross expressed his concern that if Lynda.com is discontinued, many in the community who cannot afford such a service will have to pay out of pocket for the service. He explained that LinkedIn is only using user data to be able to provide more content based on demographics and topic popularity and that this is a privacy versus access issue. Chair Libresco shared his thoughts that if LinkedIn is using user data to build more content, that’s fine, but if they are advertising to users based on their interest, that’s a problem. Mr. Bankhead replied that LinkedIn has communicated something different from what Board Member Ross has shared. He explained that LinkedIn was concerned about a recent hack where hundreds of library accounts were used to access Lynda.com resources. LinkedIn was very troubled by this incident. Mr. Bankhead continued, he said 10 that apparently, LinkedIn is losing revenue in providing the Lynda.com service to libraries and that if libraries don’t wish to continue the relationship based on their LinkedIn’s terms, they are welcome to cancel the service. Board Member Ross said he wants to ensure the Library staff are making an informed decision based on what LinkedIn is using the user data for before discontinuing the Lynda.com service. Mr. Bankhead said that he fully believes that the goal of LinkedIn is to increase their revenue and advertising. He also shared that when he informed LinkedIn that City employees have access to Lynda.com, they were aghast and objected to anyone in the organization utilizing the service. LinkedIn said that only users outside the organization should be using the service and implied that the Library was somehow in violation of the agreement. LinkedIn is not very understanding of the mission of libraries and is not flexible with how Lynda.com should be utilized. Board Member Cortes asked how other Marin County libraries are reacting to LinkedIn’s behavior. Mr. Bankhead replied that the Marin County Free Library System is ending the service in September 2019. They want to ensure patrons know in advance that the service will end and allow patrons to finish any course they may have started. Board Member Cortes asked if the service can be phased out over a period. Mr. Bankhead replied, great idea, but it must occur before Lynda.com becomes LinkedIn Learning. Mr. Bankhead also shared that he is currently working with the County to negotiate a better service model with Kanopy. Chair Libresco said that Kanopy also has a d ifferent incentive system than is preferable as the more users view their content, the more it costs the Library. Mr. Bankhead replied that there are other services that use a different equation avoiding rises in cost and that Kanopy may be willing to use that metric. He said that Kanopy’s hands are tied as they must abide by licensing agreements with their content creators. Ms. Andrade-Wax added that Kanopy is sharing user information with third parties. Board Member Ross replied that LinkedIn has a policy of not sharing or selling user data. He shared his concern about the information the Library staff were getting, whether it was accurate or not as to how LinkedIn would be using user data. He again reiterated that cancelling the Lynda.com subscription would be a great loss for Library users as the content is created professionally and that the quantity of content isn’t 11 available anywhere else. Board Member Ross recommended that other Board Members try out the Lynda.com service to see for themselves all that it has to offer. Board Member Fromm asked Mr. Epstein if he had any opinion on the privacy issues related to Lynda.com and Kanopy. Mr. Epstein replied that he was not informed enough to provide an opinion. He did comment that the dialogue he was hearing between the Board Members and Library staff is exactly what the City Council appointed the Board Members to do, to discuss issues and advise City staff. He added that the Board Members can act by making a motion to accept the report as presented and/or advise as to how Library staff can move forward. Board Member Cortes asked what percentage of users will be impacted by cancelling these services. Mr. Bankhead replied that only six hundred Lynda.com users would be impacted of the approximately thirty thousand registered borrowers. Board Member Cortes asked if Library staff were researching alternatives. Mr. Bankhead replied that the MARINet Consortium Digital Resources Working Group is evaluating options. There are two options that members of the consortium have, provide a service independently or provide a service as a group. This can also depend on the provider as they may prefer individual over group purchasing. Therefore, some services may be available to users of specific libraries and others to all users of the consortium. The consortium is still figuring out the best way forward. Mr. Bankhead explained that just because bigger libraries are dropping these services doesn’t mean others have to as well. He continued and provided statistics on Kanopy. He said that there had been twenty-six thousand Kanopy plays within the entire consortium. Chair Libresco expressed to Mr. Bankhead that he made a good case for dropping these services, but that Library staff should continue to research alternatives. He added that there may not be a lot of alternatives for Lynda.com, but that there should be plenty of alternative to Kanopy. Perhaps an alternative to Kanopy with a financial model that works for the Library’s budget. Board Member Cortes asked whether the Board Members can know what the alternatives are and have more precise user numbers at the next meeting to be able to decide as to how the Library should move forward. Mr. Bankhead replied that the Library staff will decide with the input that the Board Members have provided. He added that Kanopy is a month -to-month subscription and the decision could be made at any time. He said that the national decision for LinkedIn 12 Learning has already been made and that these decisions need to be made before the next meeting. Chair Libresco asked whether the Director of the City’s Digital Service and Open Government (DSOG) has any opinion about privacy and cost issues related to Lynda.com and Kanopy. Mr. Bankhead replied that the DSOG Director may differ to the City’s professional expertise (City Attorney’s Office) and may know less about privacy concerns inherent in the library profession. Chair Libresco said that it may be prudent for Library staff to have a discussion with the Director of DSOG in case she may have some insight about privacy and subscription - based services. Mr. Bankhead said he values the input of his City colleagues, but in this case, the involvement of the Director of DSOG would be about how to provide the Lynda.com service to City employees as a professional development tool, not as a service to Library patrons. Ms. Andrade-Wax explained that Lynda.com and Kanopy have two distinct issues. One issue that the library profession has with these platforms is tha t they are no longer adhering to the privacy policies and procedures set by local and national library associations. The other issue is that their service model makes it difficult to project cost and anticipate budget needs. Board Member Ross clarified that the American Library Association did not recommend canceling the Lynda.com service but encouraged LinkedIn to change their service model. Board Member Fromm asked if the Library is already doing something illegal by breaking user privacy and confidentiality. Mr. Bankhead replied that there is a statute in the law that libraries can’t share user data with anyone. He explained that in this situation with Lynda.com and Kanopy, users are put into a position of making the decision whether to share their own personal information. He said that the Library in this situation is not doing anything illegal. Mr. Epstein added that what he understood the American Library Association’s position to be is that if LinkedIn’s contract does not change, cancel the subscription, if they are willing to change the contract to fit the needs of libraries, keep the subscription. Mr. Bankhead recommended having a motion based on Mr. Epstein’s statement. Board Member Cortes asked if we can phase out the service if LinkedIn wa nts to keep the contract as is. 13 Mr. Bankhead replied, we can phase out the service, but if they are unwilling to adhere to our privacy requirements, we cannot continue the subscription. He requested a motion to be passed that the Library can send to Linke dIn with the language from the article found by Board Member Ross. A motion was made by Board Member Ross to support the position of the American Library Association, which urges LinkedIn Learning to reconsider changes to term of service that impair library users’ privacy rights. The motion was seconded by Board Member Rose. The motion was approved unanimously. Chair Libresco expressed that there should be an alternative option to Kanopy. Mr. Bankhead replied that a service that the Library already provides, Hoopla, is a current alternative to Kanopy. He explained that unlike Kanopy, which is more of a documentary and independent films platform, Hoopla is more of a Hollywood films platform. But that they both provide online video streaming. He added that Overdrive is another current alternative to Kanopy. Ms. Andrade-Wax asked a clarifying question about alternatives to Kanopy, whether the Library already provide similar services. Mr. Bankhead replied, yes. Ms. Andrade-Wax reiterated Mr. Bankhead’s past statement that the savings from cancelling Kanopy would fund the purchase of additional eBooks, significantly expanding that collection. Mr. Bankhead pointed out some of the benefits of eBooks, such as aroun d the clock availability, serving people with low vision, and the avoidance of material decay. Chair Libresco recommended promoting alternatives to Kanopy so that those who are impacted know their options. BOARD REPORTS AND COMMENTS None 14 STAFF COMMENTS Mr. Bankhead shared updates about Library groups and other relevant information with the Board Members. The Parcel Tax Committee didn’t meet in July. The Friends of the San Rafael Public Library did meet and considered funding request for book club kits for Next Generation Scholars. They also discussed plans for an upcoming book sale. Library staff submit funding requests to the Friends throughout the year and there is currently a backlog on a request for ongoing Art Talks. The Friends have been providing funds without an official request for Art Talks. There are an additional five requests outstanding as they didn’t meet in August. They will consider these requests at an upcoming retreat. Presentations such as the one provided by Ms. Aschkenas at the start of this meeting are strategically planned for Friends meetings so that they can see how the funding they provide impacts the community the Library serves. The Library Foundation Annual Dinner is coming up on October 10th. All Board Members are invited to attend. Jane Light, former San Jose Library Director will be speaking at the event about libraries of the future. MARINet Board met on the third Thursday of July. One of the topics discussed was placing book drops in unincorporated areas of the County to serve residents who may have a hard time getting to a library location. Tam Valley is one location that the County and Mill Valley Libraries have selected. Another location that was mentioned was on Lucas Valley Road near the freeway, however nothing was decided. Attendance was also discussed as the Chair and the County Library Director have been missing many meetings. A new Chair was elected, Abbot Chambers, the Sausalito Public Library Director. A new Vice Chair was also elected, Linda Kenton, the San Anselmo Public Library Director. One other topic of discussion was the 2020 Census and how the libraries can help people navigate the process. This is the first time in history people can complete the census form online. Board Member Cortes recommended Marinwood Community Center as one of the options for a book drop in an unincorporated area. Mr. Bankhead described the location on Lucas Valley Road near a mailbox. Board Member Cortes said that area is an accident-prone area. Mr. Bankhead explained that there is a cost associated with emptying book drops, but if it is located on Los Gamos near the YMCA, the MARINet distribution center is already located there and the consortium would avoid the additional collection cost. 15 NorthNet Board met before the last Board meeting where they had the Mindfulness Presentation and shared the unfunded retiree liability for the previous organization, North Bay Cooperative Library System. Since that meeting, there have been two phone meetings about using the funds from the previous organization to pay a lawyer to determine options. The unfunded liabilities are for previous NorthNet members. The lawyer will determine whether NorthNet is even liable for the previous members. All Marin County consortium libraries were members and will have to pay a portion of the future the bill. Dividing the liability is also still in question. The liability is approximately seven thousand dollars a year. The liability covers health care and retirement benefits. CalPERS may step in if members default. The annual Volunteer Appreciation Party was on Monday, July 15th. The format was changed from a Friday evening dinner to a Monday morning brunch. It was a big success, lots of great feedback. As part of the merger, a date has been set for both departments to meet on Wednesday, August 28th to share what the new department is going to look like. Chair Libresco asked Mr. Bankhead to consider including on the agenda an update of this merger meeting during the next Board meeting. Ms. Andrade-Wax added that the staff meeting will cover what the merger process has involved, what the organizational chart will look like, and what the new department name and branding is going to look like. Staff position updates require Council approval. Therefore, the organizational chart cannot be implemented until position updates are approved. Nothing at the staff meeting will be final until Council has approved proposed changes. Chair Libresco replied and said that the Board does not want any personnel specifics, only a general update as to how the process is moving along. Ms. Andrade-Wax shared that the New Library Facilities Project Study Report will be presented to the Council on September 16th as a regular item on the agenda and not a study session. That will allow for a robust discussion and for the community to come in without the cap on time. Study Sessions are limited as to how long they can go. Having the report be a part of the Council Meeting Regular Agenda will allow enough time to cover the topic and ensure the public has an opportunity to weigh in. Board Member Cortes asked why user comments are no longer part of this report. Mr. Bankhead replied that he understands the Board Members value user feedback, but that user comments are more of an operational matter. He explained that the previous set of material that were provided to the Board included a Director’s Report. 16 The report included such things as employee updates and operational items such as the wall in the lobby which are internal operational items. Now, Library staff have made the Friday Memo a way to share broader and top-level items externally. User feedback is received and taken into consideration and acted upon when necessary. It is m ore of an operational thing and less relevant to the advice of the Board and the advisory role it provides. Ms. Andrade-Wax added that the Board is still seeking balance between what the Board was used to and the new format of including user feedback when Library staff feel it is necessary. She explained that when operational issues are presented to the Board, it is to inform the Board, but not to ask the Board to act on those issues. Chair Libresco clarified that the Board only want to hear user comments, not to take any action on the them. He said the Board finds the user comments to be interesting. Board Member Cortes said that majority of the feedback is not operational, that as a Board, why would we not want to see the feedback from the community abo ut how the library is doing and how we’re improving or not. How we can do better, or know that we are awesome, etc. It’s direct community feedback, why would it be an operational issue ? Mr. Epstein replied, that some comments may be operational that will not require the Board’s advice, but at times there may be comments related to policies. He explained that for comments related to policies where Library staff may want Board input, Library staff will use their judgement in determining whether to share those comments with the Board for advice. The Board must rely on Mr. Bankhead to make the correct judgement or distinction. Mr. Bankhead made the point that if a user submits a comment and s ees it made public through a public meeting, that user may not contribute any further comments. Board Member Ross said that we don’t attribute the comments. Mr. Bankhead replied that the text of the comments may be identifiable by the user. Therefore, it may be a privacy violation. Chair Libresco provided an example of a comment that the Board would like to know about, canceling the Lynda.com service for example and providing an alternative. The Board would want to know what the users think about the can cellation and the alternative service. Mr. Bankhead said he would provide a summary of comments and not verbatim comments, which was the practice in the past. Mr. Bankhead shared that Bibliocommons, which is a discovery layer that sits on top of the online catalog is very popular and many users have commented positively about how awesome it is. 17 Mr. Epstein provided an example of the library closing earlier during a recession. Users may submit a lot of comments about their dissatisfaction and that would ce rtainly be something the Board would be interested in knowing. Chair Libresco asked the Board Members if there are any topics they would like to recommend for the next meeting’s agenda. Mr. Bankhead said that he already has agenda items going into the foreseeable future. Items such as the Automated Materials Handling and RFID conversion that will help the Library with processing and labor, Library fines, and changing Library hours where the Library would open Monday morning and be closed on an evening that is currently slow in user traffic. Ms. Andrade-Wax added that Library staff are making a list of agenda items with dates as to when they will be presented to the Board. Chair Libresco replied that the Board does not want to wait, that if they are intere sted in something, they don’t want to wait four months for example. Board Member Fromm recommended an agenda item. She said she would like an update on the lobby improvements, like hanging a painting in the lobby would be a great improvement. Board Member Fromm also recommended a buzzer for users who need assistance in the lobby when there is no one available. The buzzer would alert staff that someone needs help. She asked for an agenda item where the Board can discuss how the lobby can be enhanced simply, inexpensively, and without any violations. Mr. Bankhead replied that the wall has been already improved and that Library staff are continuing to work on the beautification of the lobby, that it’s a work in progress. Board Member Cortes asked if Board Members can make a motion to have something on the agenda on the day of a meeting. Mr. Epstein replied, no, that the Brown Act does not accommodate such a request. He explained that the law is that an item can be added to an agenda during an emergency, and that rarely happens only at City Council meetings. Mr. Epstein explained that depending on what is happening, agenda item dates can change. He provided an example of Council Meetings and how the City Manager prepares way in advance based on certain projects, but that those dates can change to add an unexpected item. For example, if there is a fire, that item can be added to the agenda and previously scheduled items can be moved further into the future. Mr. Epstein explai ned that agenda setting will be Mr. Bankhead’s authority and prerogative. Mr. Bankhead can 18 take into consideration Board suggested agenda items, but he may never include those items on the agenda. It is his prerogative. Ms. Andrade-Wax added that items that are outside of the Board’s purview would not be put on the agenda as a discussion item but there may be items of interest that would be presented to the Board under presentations. Board Member Cortes expressed that if the Board Members want and expect something to be on a future agenda, it should be on a future agenda. Mr. Epstein reiterated that agenda items require an accompanying staff report. Chair Libresco asked if the Board Members can provide public comment during public comment time about items not on the agenda. Mr. Epstein replied that Board Members can provide public comment during public comment time. He clarified that it is not a time for deliberation on the topic or for Library staff to respond. Public comment in general is a place of danger for the Brown Act violations because it can morph into deliberation and discussion. NEXT MEETING: SEPTEMBER 10, 2019 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned 8:02 P.M. LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES AGENDA REPORT September 10, 2019 Item #4 TITLE: DISCUSSION OF LIBRARY DAILY FINES SUMMARY: In 2015, the San Rafael Public Library eliminated daily fines for children’s materials. Then in 2016 the Library Board of Trustees voted to eliminate all daily fines as a one-year pilot and forwarded their recommendation to the City Council Finance Committee for their review and consideration. Unfortunately, the request was denied. Since then, several large Library systems throughout the San Francisco Bay Area have stopped charging all daily fines for overdue Library material. Most recently the Marin County Free Library, which makes up 50% of the MARINet consortium which includes the City of San Rafael, announced as of July 1, 2019 they will no longer charge daily fines. On August 29, 2109, another MARINet member, the Belvedere -Tiburon Library, announced that they were fine-free for all materials, and that past fines have been waived for patrons. In Fiscal Year 2019/2020, the City will be updating the 2011 Master Fee Schedule which includes fines for Library books, audio books, magazines, music CDs, DVDs and Blu-Ray DVD’s. As part of the review, staff will be making recommendations to revise and/or eliminate Library fees and fines. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board accept the report and provide comment. Page 2 of 3 BACKGROUND In 2011, the City adopted its Master Fee Schedule which included fees and fines for a variety of City services and programs. With the support of the Library Board of Trustees, the City Council adopted a resolution in April 2015 to eliminate late fines for children’s materials, provide an amnesty program for youth with accrued fines, and eliminate the replacement fee for youth Library cards. After the City eliminated late fines for children’s related Library materials, the response from the community was universally positive. Many parents and caregivers comment to Library staff that they are happily checking out more items now that they aren’t afraid of accruing high late fines on stacks of picture books for their children. Numerous s taff members have reported patrons expressing joy when told they don’t owe money for late fines on their children’s items anymore. The impact of removing overdue fines on youth materials has been positive without question and without any of the possible ne gative repercussions that had been speculated about. Since then, several large Library systems throughout the San Francisco Bay Area have stopped charging all daily fines for overdue Library material. Most recently the Marin County Free Library, which makes up 50% of the MARINet consortium which includes the City of San Rafael, announced as of July 1, 2019 they will no longer charge daily fines. On August 29, 2109, another MARINet member, the Belvedere -Tiburon Library, announced that they were fine-free for all materials, and that past fines have been waived for patrons. Another MARINet member, the Sausalito Public Library, has eliminated all fines except for those on park passes and new items. The College of Marin Library has indicated they are planning to go fine -free in the soon, and in preparation they have eliminated existing fines from their patron’s records. DISCUSSION In Fiscal Year 2019/2020, the City will be updating the 2011 Master Fee Schedule which includes fines for Library books, audio books, magazines, music CDs, DVDs and Blu-Ray DVD’s. As part of the review, staff will be making recommendations to revise and/or eliminate Library fees and fines. These changes to fines and fees will eliminate barriers and improve equity of access for all San Rafael residents. Additionally, the national trend of eliminating overdue fines has been found to not adversely affect the return of Library materials, but instead to increase the use of the Library and its resources. This trend has been reinforced by San Rafael Public Library’s own experiences and data over the past four years after eliminating youth overdue fines. As with its youth materials, the San Rafael Library will still require that all adult materials are returned to the Library. The Library will still send out notices to residents when an item is due in two days, and again once the item is overdue. If materials are not returned within x weeks the item will be billed to the user’s account. This charge, plus an automatic eight-dollar processing fee will cause the Library user to immediately exceed the $10 Page 3 of 3 maximum on fines/fees. Once this limit is exceeded the library user’s account is frozen and are they are prevented from future use until items are returned or pa id for. Therefore, the Library does not anticipate any loss of materials due to the elimination of fines. SUMMARY Fines unnecessarily put the Library in an adversarial relationship with the public. In addition, they create significant barriers, real and imagined, that restrict access by the public to library materials. Staff has already been approached by multiple patrons who are surprised that the City is still charging fines, assuming that the change by Marin County Free Library also applied to all the libraries in the consortium. It simply makes sense to be in alignment with the libraries in the greater Bay Area and especially with the largest library in the consortium, Marin County Free Library (MCFL). A large percentage of San Rafael residents use the Marin County Free Library Civic Center branch as well as San Rafael Libraries. Being consistent with MCFL policy in this area will eliminate confusion in communicating to patrons about this issue. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Any other action as determined by the Board. Submitted by: Henry Bankhead Assistant Library and Recreation Director / City Librarian Attachment: 1. “Marin library system eliminating lates fines to promote equity”, Marin Independent Article (6-23-19) LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES AGENDA REPORT September 10, 2019 Item #5 TITLE: UPDATE ON THE DEPARTMENT INTEGRATION SUMMARY: Library and Recreation Department staff met on Wednesday, August 28th for an update on the new integrated department. After a welcome by City Manager Jim Schutz, Susan Andrade-Wax, Director of Library and Recreation shared an overview of the merger process to date. Henry Bankhead, Assistant Library and Recreation Director/City Librarian shared an outline of the vision, mission and values for the new department that was created by both teams. Ms. Andrade-Wax then presented a general snapshot of the organizational chart for the new department and answered questions. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board accept the report and provide comment. BACKGROUND The Library and Recreation Department were integrated with the intention of creating new possibilities for collaboration and innovation in programming and services for the community, as well as creating efficiencies through eliminating duplication, combining resources and leveraging diverse skill sets. Another goal is to create more shared training and professional development, as well as more opportunities for growth and advancement of employees. From the onset of prioritizing this effort, the City initiated a very deliberate and thoughtful approach to integration of the two departments. With the assistance of Management Partners, an outside consultant, the official integration followed a thorough engagement and planning process which was a participatory and engaged staff at all levels. Activities included benchmarking best practices and organizational structures in other combined Library and Community Services Departments, as well as conducting an employee survey and two workshops. These two workshops took the form of on-site meetings between all the staff of both departments. The first meeting was at the end of February 2019 and the second towards the end of March 2019. Staff engaged in general team building activities, identified commonalities and possible opportunities for collaboration, assisted with the development of the organizational structure and department name and helped create a vision, mission, values and initial goals for the new department Page 2 of 5 The employee survey identified three strengths and three opportunities for the new department: Top three (3) strengths • Caring, competent and resourceful staff • Department leadership committed to organizational improvements • Commitment to quality customer services Top three (3) opportunities • Increase our innovative programming and services • Increase collaboration between teams • Improve outreach and communication tools through joint efforts Vision, Mission and Values Vision, Mission and Values Statement options were developed by the leadership team of both departments and shared with staff at the second workshop in March to get their feedback. After a presentation of the draft vision and mission statement optio ns and the top values, the larger group was asked to provide their preferences for the vision, mission and values through dot voting process. Vision Statement: “Connect and Flourish” Mission Statement: “Enriching our community through discovery, learning and play” Tagline: “Discover, Learn, Play Page 3 of 5 Department Values : • Community • Commitment • Collaboration • Caring • Creativity Working Groups As part of the planning process staff from both leadership teams came up with initial goals and working groups to facilitate collaboration between the two former departments. The working groups that were created include: Department Integration, Team Development and Cross Training; Marketing and Communication; Facilities and Technology and Programs and Services. DISCUSSION The Department Organizational Structure is as described in the following organizational chart. There will be one director, Susan Andrade-Wax of the joined department of Library and Recreation. There will be two Assistant Directors reporting to the Director; one designated as Assistant Library and Recreation Director /City Librarian which will be Henry Bankhead. The other Assistant Director will be entitled Assistant Library and Recreation Director and will oversee recreation and childcare. This new position will be filled later in the year after Council Approval of the organizational structure. Page 4 of 5 Departmental Organizational Chart Department Name Originally there were two potential departmental names that were under consideration. Each one was based on different organizational structures that featured either two or three divisions. As the structure of two divisions became more defined, it made sense to select Library and Recreation which reflected two major divisions within the department: Library & Arts, and Recreation & Childcare. Next Steps for the new department will be to revisit the working groups initially proposed earlier which include: Department Integration & Team Development; Marketing and Communication; Facilities & Technology; and Programs & Services. Staff will also be working on creating change management plans for Falkirk Cultural Center and Afterschool Enrichment with a proposed implementation date of January 1, 2020. The new departmental structure for the Library & Recreation Department is tentatively scheduled to be presented to the City Council on October 7, 2019. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Any other action as determined by the Board. Library and Recreation Director Assistant Library and Recreation Director -/ City Librarian Adult Services Childrens Services Circulation Services Technical Services Pickleweed Library Falkirk Cultural Center Division Admin Assistant Library and Recreation Director Childcare (7 sites)Albert J. Boro Community Center San Rafael Community Center Terra Linda Community Center Division Admin Department Admin and Marketing Page 5 of 5 Submitted by: Henry Bankhead Assistant Library and Recreation Director / City Librarian 7/3/2019 Marin library system eliminating late fines to boost equity https://www.marinij.com/2019/06/23/marin-library-system-eliminating-late-fines-to-promote-equity/2/3 Overdue feffes,typically charged foffr everyrr day a book was overdue,were createdOverdue fees, typically charged for every day a book was overdue, were created to make sure materials were returned promptly so other people could gain accessto make sure materials were returned promptly so other people could gain access to them.to them. Research has shown that overdue feffes do not incentivize the timely return ofResearch has shown that overdue fees do not incentivize the timely return of materials,White said.She said the feffes cause people to avoid libraries instead.materials, White said. She said the fees cause people to avoid libraries instead. “Just to clarifyff we’re not talking about materials that are lost or damaged,”White“Just to clarify we’re not talking about materials that are lost or damaged,” White said.“People will still be responsible foffr replacing items.”said. “People will still be responsible for replacing items.” Following the meeting,Sara Jones,director of the county libraryrr system,said toFollowing the meeting, Sara Jones, director of the county library system, said to ensure that borrowers don’t hold onto books and other materials indefinitely theensure that borrowers don’t hold onto books and other materials indefinitely the libraryrr will use the “Blockbuster Video”approach of charging them foffr the cost oflibrary will use the “Blockbuster Video” approach of charging them for the cost of replacing an item if they keep it past a certrrain due date.replacing an item if they keep it past a certain due date. Jones said the libraryrr eliminated late feffes foffr children’s books several years agoJones said the library eliminated late fees for children’s books several years ago and has experienced no problem with people holding onto books foffr an inordinateand has experienced no problem with people holding onto books for an inordinate amount of time.amount of time. White said that while accounting foffr less than half of 1%of libraryrr revenues,White said that while accounting for less than half of 1% of library revenues, overdue fines take an inordinate amount of libraryrr staffff time to collect and accountoverdue fines take an inordinate amount of library staff time to collect and account foffr.for. “We want our staffff to do more creative community-minded work,”she said.“We want our staff to do more creative community-minded work,” she said. Chantel WaWWlker,assistant director of libraryrr servrrices,said the move will cost aboutChantel Walker, assistant director of library services, said the move will cost about $88,000 annually.WaWWlker said a team of libraryrr administrators has already come$88,000 annually. Walker said a team of library administrators has already come up with a list of spending cuts to compensate foffr the lost revenue.up with a list of spending cuts to compensate for the lost revenue. “We came up with a path foffrwrrard that is sustainable foffr us and will not negatively“We came up with a path forward that is sustainable for us and will not negatively impact public servrrices,”WaWWlker said.impact public services,” Walker said. She noted that last week Marin supervrrisors approved reducing entrance feffes toShe noted that last week Marin supervisors approved reducing entrance fees to three regional parks in Marin and eliminating an admission feffe foffr a swimmingthree regional parks in Marin and eliminating an admission fee for a swimming pool at one of the parks in an effffoffrtrr to make faffcilities more accessible to ethnicallypool at one of the parks in an effort to make facilities more accessible to ethnically diverse,low-income residents.diverse, low-income residents. Supervrrisor Kate Sears said,“It is a significant amount of money.I really appreciateSupervisor Kate Sears said, “It is a significant amount of money. I really appreciate the thought that went into making it work.I think this is going to make all of us whothe thought that went into making it work. I think this is going to make all of us who are slow readers feffel a lot more confident.”are slow readers feel a lot more confident.” The elimination of late fines is becoming a national trend.In the Bay Area alone,The elimination of late fines is becoming a national trend. In the Bay Area alone, libraries in San Francisco,Berkeley,Alameda,San Mateo and Contra Costa havelibraries in San Francisco, Berkeley, Alameda, San Mateo and Contra Costa have dropped late feffes.WaWWlker said the hope is that other libraries in Marin will foffllowdropped late fees. Walker said the hope is that other libraries in Marin will follow suit.suit. 7/3/2019 Marin library system eliminating late fines to boost equity https://www.marinij.com/2019/06/23/marin-library-system-eliminating-late-fines-to-promote-equity/3/3 Henryrr Bankhead,interim director of the San Rafaffel Public Libraryrr,said,“We’reHenry Bankhead, interim director of the San Rafael Public Library, said, “We’re considering our options.”considering our options.” Bankhead said the San Rafaffel libraryrr eliminated late feffes on children’s books inBankhead said the San Rafael library eliminated late fees on children’s books in 2015.2015. Richard HalsteadRichard Halstead Richard Halstead is a news reporter covering Marin CountyRichard Halstead is a news reporter covering Marin County news, politics, health care, social services, Fairfax and Sannews, politics, health care, social services, Fairfax and San Anselmo.Anselmo.  Follow Richard Halstead Follow Richard Halstead @HalsteadRichard@HalsteadRichard Tags: TTTags: LibrariesLibrariesLibraries,,newsletternewsletter