HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Library Trustees 2019-08-13 Agenda
SAN RAFAEL PUBLIC LIBRARY
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
AGENDA
Tuesday, August 13, 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 July 9, 2019
MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
2. Introductions/Awards/Recognitions/Presentations
A. Presentation on Pickleweed Book Club and Author Visits – Lea Ashkenaz
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 COMMISSION
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 Electronic Resources
BOARD REPORTS AND COMMENTS
5. Other brief reports on any meetings, conferences, and/or seminars attended by the
Commission members.
STAFF COMMENTS
6. Brief reports on any meetings, conferences, and/or seminars attended by the Commission
members.
A. Measure D Parcel Tax Committee
B. Friends of the San Rafael Public Library
C. San Rafael Public Library Foundation
D. MARINet Board
E. NorthNet Board
SAN RAFAEL
THE CITY WITH A MISSION
Library Board of Trustees Agenda Page 2 of 2
F. City Librarian Update
NEXT MEETING: August 13, 2019
FUTURE AGENDA TOPICS
ADJOURNMENT
Notice
Any records relating to an agenda item, received by a majority or more of the Council less than 72 hours
before the meeting, shall be available for inspection at the San Rafael Public Library, 1100 E Street, San
Rafael, CA 94901, and placed with other agenda-related materials on the table at the Commission meeting
prior to the meeting. American Sign Language interpreters and assistive listening devices may be requested
by calling (415) 485-3198 (TDD) or (415) 485-3333 (voice) at least 72 hours in advance. Copies of documents
are available in accessible formats upon request. Public transportation is available through Golden Gate
Transit, Line 20 or 23. Paratransit is available by calli ng 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
July 9, 2019 – 6:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Libresco called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M.
Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Josh Libresco, Jaimi Cortes, Claudia Fromm, Beverly Rose, Robert
Ross and Catherine Sumser (arrived at 6:07 P.M.)
Commissioners Absent: None
Staff Present: Henry Bankhead, Interim Library Director, Susan Andrade -Wax,
Community Services Director and Jinder Banwait, Senior
Administrative Assistant
AGENDA AMENDMENTS
None
MINUTES
1. Approve regular meeting minutes of June 11, 2019
A motion was made my Trustee Rose, seconded by Trustee Cortes, to approve the minutes of
the June 11, 2019 meeting. The motion was approved unanimously.
SAN RAFAEL
THE CITY WITH A MISSION
2
MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
2. Introductions/Awards/Recognitions/Presentations
Ms. Andrade-Wax provided the Trustees information about the City’s new Board and
Commissions Meetings format. She explained that since the Board and Commissions
are City Council appointed and as such, fall under the Brown Act and Robert’s Rules of
Order. In addition, all Board and Commission packets going forward will be similar in
format and layout which should make it easier for the public to comprehend and
understand City meeting protocols and procedures. She also mentioned, that when the
Board of Trustees is voting on an “action” item on the agenda, a roll call will be
conducted, and the Trustees responses will be recorded/documented.
Based on a conversation with the City Attorney’s office, it was recommended that staff
email the individual Trustees to ask them whether they wanted to include and observe
the Pledge of Allegiance as part of their meeting’s proceedings. Ms. Andrade-Wax
explained that observing the Pledge of Allegiance is not a requirement but is available
as an option. Chair Libresco asked why the Board couldn’t have a discussion, Ms.
Andrade-Wax replied that the Board of Trustees couldn’t discuss it tonight because it
isn’t on the meeting’s agenda, but staff can place it on the next agenda if the Board
agreed. All Board Members agreed.
Ms. Andrade-Wax also provided information about “quorum” and mentioned that
quorum is dependent on a board, commission or committee size. She explained that if
there is no quorum, the meeting cannot be held and as a result is cancelled. For
example, the Library Board of Trustees membership is five members, so three members
must be present to meet quorum. In addition, the alternate member can vote in the
absence of a regular, voting member.
Ms. Andrade-Wax explained that a serial meeting can often occur when Board
members email or send information to each other, privately discussing Board matters,
and that it is a violation of the Brown Act.
Ms. Andrade-Wax provided information about public comments during “Meeting Open to
The Public”. She mentioned that two items are included in this portion of the meeting
agenda; introductions, awards and presentations, and public comment.
Introductions and awards are self -explanatory, presentations could be on a topic that is
not necessarily under the Board’s purview but of interest to the Board. Some examples
may include a presentation from the Marin County Library, Friends of the Library Book
Sale Announcement, Recognition of Volunteers, etc. During public comments, the
public can comment on items that are not on the meeting’s agenda. Public comments
3
are often limited to two to three minutes and the Board does not discuss nor take any
action because of the public’s comments. However, the Chair may ask a clarifying
question to be sure that the comments are interpreted and reflected accurately in the
minutes.
Ms. Andrade-Wax explained the “Matters Before the Commission” section of the
meeting. This is where agenda items that includes actionable or informational agenda
items appear. If the agenda item requires the Boards review and consideration, then a
roll call will be conducted. If the item is just informational, the recommendation is usuall y
that the “Board accepts the report and provide feedback”. In addition, while the agenda
item is being presented and discussed, the public is also invited to provide their
feedback and ask questions.
As part of the agenda packet, staff will prepare written reports for all items included in
this section and it will be posted as part of the meeting notification process. Meeting
packets will be emailed to the Board of Trustees, but members of the public will be able
to access the agenda packets on the City’s website.
Chair Libresco asked whether an item not requiring a staff report can be added to the
agenda, if it is urgent. Ms. Andrade-Wax replied, that most areas that fall under the
Board of Trustees purview are not of an urgent nature, however if there was an
emergency, then staff would consult with the City Clerk’s office on how best to address
it.
Trustee Rose said that Mr. Bankhead in the past had emailed Board Members asking
for agenda items. Ms. Andrade-Wax replied, as we go through this process, the Board
will become agenda driven. Future agendas items will be discussed during prior
meeting and if there is consensus, the items will be added to a future meeting agenda.
Vice Chair Cortes wanted clarification whether after an agenda has been created,
additional items of an urgent nature can be added. Andrade -Wax reiterated that most
areas that fall under the Board of Trustees purview are not of an urgent nature, however
if there was an emergency, then staff would consult with the City Clerk’s office on how
best to address it.
Chair Libresco explained that the Board Members do not want to be constrained to what
would be on an agenda a month in advance. Ms. Andrade-Wax replied that it is prudent
to have consensus from the entire Board at a meeting on whether an item is placed on
the agenda and should not be discussed outside of the meeting. Vice Chair Cortes
asked whether we can verify this by asking the City Clerk. Ms. Andrade-Wax replied
that she would ask the City Attorney.
4
Chair Libresco shared with the group that he, the City Clerk, Mr. Bankhead, Ms.
Andrade-Wax, and Vice Chair Cortes met the week before about these changes and
discussed their differences. Chair Libresco expressed to Ms. Andrade-Wax and Mr.
Bankhead that the Board does not need the proposed requirements and the excessive
formality. He added that the Board is very entrepreneurial/progressive and wants to
follow the law but does not want excessive bureaucracy. Vice Chair Cortes was
concerned whether the Board would continue receiving Mr. Bankhead’s Library Reports
about staff and other important information. Ms. Andrade-Wax reassured Vice Chair
Cortes and the Board that she and Mr. Bankhead would ensure the Board receives as
much pertinent information as possible. However, explained that some information in
the past may not have been appropriate to share, specifically personnel and operational
matters. Vice Chair Cortes asked whether the Board will still receive budget reports. Ms.
Andrade-Wax replied that the Board will still receive budget reports as in the past.
Trustee Ross asked whether the Board Members can meet in a closed or executive
session. Ms. Andrade-Wax replied that only certain boards such as the City Council can
conduct a closed session to discuss confidential issue such as a personnel or litigation
matter. Ms. Andrade-Wax expressed that the changes that have been shared are a lot
to consume and that she understands the Board’s frustration. She also apologized for
not having all the answers and assured the Board that she would get clarity from the
appropriate City officials.
Ms. Andrade-Wax stated that the Boards Reports and Comments section of the agenda
is when Board Members can report or provide comments about meetings they have
attended. Examples include any updates they may have received, correspondence,
committee reports, schedule of upcoming events/activities, etc.
Lastly, Ms. Andrade-Wax explained that if there are no upcoming items on the agenda,
staff would recommend canceling the meeting. The cancellation would be posted and
announced as soon as possible so that the public may also be informed. Chair Libresco
said there were always “standing items” on the agenda in the past. Ms. Andrade-Wax
stated that some of those items could be incorporated under Board or Staff comments,
but that all “actionable” items must be included in the regular part of the agenda and
accompanied by a staff report. Chair Libresco replied that if required, he can prepare a
staff report with a paragraph or two in about five minutes.
Chair Libresco said he has great respect for Ms. Andrade-Wax for her efforts in
changing the format of the Board meetings but expressed that the Board Members are
all volunteers and do not serve City officials but serve the public. He explained that the
Board wants to follow the law, help the public, but do not want to be told what to do.
5
Vice Chair Cortes added that she agrees with Chair Libresco, that she and the Board
Members enjoy what they do, appreciate the staff, like to hea r what is happening at the
Library, but want flexibility. Ms. Andrade-Wax assured Board Members that though the
changes are legally required, she and the staff would try to be as flexible as possible.
3. Public Comment from the audience regarding items not listed on the agenda
None
MATTERS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
Chair Libresco asked Board Members if they would like to move the San Rafael Public
Library Facilities Planning Study Subcommittee Report up so that members of the public
that are present do not have to wait. Chair Libresco asked to move, Trustee Rose
seconded, all Board Members were in favor.
BOARD REPORTS AND COMMENTS
Chair Libresco attended a recent subcommittee meeting and provided a report. He
explained that there are two reports, one from Noll & Tam about possible locations and
another about the results from the recent New Library Survey. Over 1,050 surveys were
completed, mostly online. The results will be shared once City Council has seen the
final reports. Vice Chair Cortes asked when the reports will go to City Council.
Ms. Andrade-Wax shared that the draft reports are being finalized and stated that the
item may go to City Council in August, but most likely in September. Chair Libresco
asked how the public can find out when the dates are set. Ms. Andrade-Wax replied, the
City Council’s website. Vice Chair Cortes asked whether a study session is
informational only. Ms. Andrade-Wax explained that the study sessions are
informational only and that it allows for the City Council to discuss the topic and get
public input without taking action on the same night. Mr. Bankhead said he would email
the respective meeting dates to all those who attended the Library Facilities planning
meetings.
Trustee Rose asked about staff morale regarding the merger, the Digital Services and
Open Government Survey, and staff safety in case of an emergency.
Mr. Bankhead shared that staff recently attended an active shooter training. There is
also a Citywide effort through the City’s Emergency Planning Manager’s office on
preparing for power outages. Mr. Bankhead also said that during fire season, face
masks are available for staff and the building is sealed off near entrances to prevent
6
smoke/ash from entering. Earthquake supplies are stored in the building as well. Mr.
Bankhead added that all City workers are mandatory emergency workers and are
required to assist during a natural disaster.
Chair Libresco asked to invite a representative from the Department of Digital Services
and Open Government.
Mr. Bankhead explained that the City’s IT Department is now known as Digital Services
and Open Government. They will continue to provide digital services for staff, but now
will also include community outreach and information delivery as part of their purview.
They are also analyzing how the City’s website serves the public and are constantly
making improvements.
Chair Libresco said he would like to learn more about the digital services that are
provided by the library and asked if this item can be added to the agenda in the future.
Ms. Andrade-Wax shared that the merger of the Library and Community Services
Departments is official as of July 1, 2019. She explained that the organizational chart
has not been finalized. Ms. Andrade-Wax shared information about staff’s involvement
throughout the merger process. There were meetings where staff from both
departments participated and shared ideas and concerns. Surveys were also made
available to staff. Mr. Bankhead explained that Management Partners Consultants
conducted the survey and the results were shared with staff.
Trustee Ross asked when the last time the Library’s website was updated. He shared a
concern from others that it was not user-friendly, especially on a mobile device. Mr.
Bankhead replied that the website is managed by a 3rd party vendor who is an expert.
He continued to explain that the website is very user-friendly as it has features such as
live chat and is fully functional on a mobile device. Mr. Bankhead added that the City
has emulated the library’s website, which uses WordPress, to redesign the City’s
website.
Trustee Rose asked whether the Library is involved in any way with the Mill Valley Film
Festival. Ms. Andrade-Wax replied that the Community Services Department currently
assists in facilitating the event. Mr. Bankhead added that the Library’s Kanopy
Streaming Service is a great example of how the Library is promoting and is involved in
the independent film scene. Kanopy is available online anytime to all Library patrons.
Andrade-Wax also added that the City is involved in marketing the Mill Valley Film
Festival. She also said that as the departments are integrated, there will be a higher
emphasize on arts and culture.
Vice Chair Cortes left at 7:31 P.M.
STAFF COMMENTS
7
Mr. Bankhead reported on a letter that he received from San Rafael Heritage. The letter
was signed by Cynthia Landecker. The letter expresses concerns about the
preservation and future of the Carnegie Building. There is an interest to be inclu ded in
the decision-making process of the use of the building if it doesn’t become the new
library location. Trustee Ross appreciated the letter and recognized the organization’s
advocacy. Chair Libresco added that others have shown great interest in also
preserving the tree on the lawn.
Mr. Bankhead invited the Board Members to the upcoming Volunteer Appreciation Party
on July 15 from 10:00 A.M.-12:00 P.M.
Mr. Andrade-Wax shared information about the Movie in the Park Program where the
community is invited to enjoy movies for free under the stars at local parks. She also
shared information about 2nd Friday Art Walk where the community can enjoy galleries,
open studios, art exhibits, live music, and refreshments while strolling in Downtown San
Rafael.
Libresco asked about the library newsletter. Ms. Andrade-Wax explained that as the
departments integrate, marketing programs and services will become more
collaborative, efficient, and effective.
Trustee Sumser left at 7:36 P.M.
MATTERS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
4. Discussion of Library Daily Fines
Ms. Andrade-Wax provided a short summary about Library Fines. She explained that
the County and the City Libraries have been moving toward eliminating fines. The City
is in the process of updating their Master Fee Schedule. This would be a great
opportunity to update the Library’s fines policy.
Mr. Bankhead added that replacement charges would not be eliminated and there
would continue to be consequences for not returning library material. We want to be
consistent with what the County is doing since they are fifty percent of our consortium.
Chair Libresco said we should add library fines to the next agenda. Trustee Ross
suggested incentivizing people, where people are rewarded for positive behavior.
Bankhead agreed and shared some ideas.
NEXT MEETING: AUGUST 13, 2019
8
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned 7:46 P.M.
LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
AGENDA REPORT
August 13, 2019
Item 4
TITLE: DISCUSSION OF LIBRARY ELECTRONIC RESOURCES
SUMMARY:
The use of electronic resources marks a shift from traditional library database
resources, such as EBSCO and Gale which offer an index of full-text articles and
citations, to interactive tools for learning and entertainment which include but are not
limited to; Lynda.com, Mango Languages, Brainfuse online tutoring, Hoopla eBooks and
movies, Kanopy movies, Discover and Go Movie Passes and RBDigital online
magazines.
The attraction of these resources is that they offer experience rather experiences rather
than just information in traditional f ormats (PDF and HTML). The trade off, with some
exceptions, is generally that these types of resources can be more expensive.
Due to recent changes in privacy policies, user agreements and/or costs, the two (2)
electronic resources that will be discussed in this report are Lynda.com and Kanopy.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Trustees accept the report and provide feedback
Page 2 of 5
BACKGROUND
The use of electronic resources marks a shift from traditional library database
resources, such as EBSCO and Gale which offer an index of full-text articles and
citations, to interactive tools for learning and entertainment which include but are not
limited to; Lynda.com, Mango Languages, Brainfuse online tutoring, Hoopla eBooks and
movies, Kanopy movies, Discover and Go Movie Passes and RBDigital online
magazines.
The attraction of these resources is that they offer experience rather experiences rather
than just information in traditional f ormats (PDF and HTML). The trade off, with some
exceptions, is generally that these types of resources can be more expensive.
Due to recent changes in privacy policies, user agreements and/or costs, the two (2)
electronic resources that will be discussed in this report are Lynda.com and Kanopy.
Lynda.com
Lynda.com is a learning resources that the San Rafael Library has offered for the past
several years. This is a rich and interactive online resource, where patrons create an
account and engage in self -paced learning through a suite of learning modules. The
cost of providing Lynda.com to our patrons is $13,125 annually. In FY 2018/2019, the
amount of total views was 4,949 which results in a cost of $2.65 per view.
Recently, Lynda.com, was purchased by Linkedin (a Microsoft Company) and is in the
process of rebranding it as LinkedIn Learning. In order to access Lynda.com, patrons
use their library card and a Personal Identification Number (PIN) and no other personal
information is required. Under the newly rebranded LinkedIn Learning, patrons would be
required to create a personal profile and agree to LinkedIn’s user agreement and
privacy policy before being able to use LinkedIn Learning. By agreeing to the user
agreement and privacy policy, the user surrenders to LinkedIn the power to share the
information contained in a user profile with whoever LinkedIn desires.
However, the new privacy policy conflicts directly with the American Library
Association’s Library Bill of Rights which states; “All people, regardless of origin, age,
background, or views, possess a right to privacy and confidentiality in their library use.
Libraries should advocate for, educate about, and protect people’s privacy,
safeguarding all library use data, including personally identifiable information.”
As a result, the California State Library recommends that public libraries no longer
provide LinkedIn Learning until the company changes its new use policy so that it
protects the privacy of library users. Not only does LinkedIn Learning refuse to
acknowledge the fundamental right to privacy that is central to the guarantee libraries
make to their customers, but it seeks to use personal information provided by library
patrons in various ways, including sharing it with third parties.
Page 3 of 5
Kanopy
In 2018, the Library partnered with the Marin County Free Library (MCFL) to provide
patrons with free access to another electronic resource called Kanopy. Kanopy is a
high-quality streaming service that features movies and documentaries. This service
model for Kanopy is that the libraries provide funding upfront that is then d iminished on
a pay per use model ($2 per film). The overall cost of this service is approximately
$30,000 annually which is funded jointly by the Marin County Free Library contributing
approximately $20,000 and the San Rafael Public Library (SRPL) contributing
approximately $10,000
Users are allowed free access of 10 views of individual movies per month. The
combined usage of the San Rafael Public Library and Marin County Free Library is
26,613 views per year at a cost of $1.13 per view. This is somewhat lower that the
$2.00 per play figure due to some free content within Kanopy, as well as the
introduction of Kanopy kids that allows kids content, once checked out, to be accessed
with unlimited plays for 30 days.
In 2018, the service was very well received by the San Rafael Public Library patrons
with the cost averaging $800 per month. However, usage has increased in the second
year and costs have the potential to become prohibitive and unsustainable. To address
this concern, SRPL and MCFL have attempted to convince Kanopy to limit the number
of movies that users can checkout from 10 to 5 per month which would also reduce
costs. Unfortunately, Kanopy has denied our request.
As other several large library systems have eliminated the service due to the company’s
unwillingness to identify a solution that will work for all parties and is financially
sustainable, San Rafael is faced with the same decision.
DISCUSSION
Lynda.com (LinkedIn Learning)
For LinkedIn, there is a clear advantage to bringing users into their platform. From a
business perspective, as a social media career platform, they benefit from users
relinquishing privacy for access to connections to other users. In addition,
This conflicts with library practices which hold sacred the ability for users to access
content anonymously. This is because the public library serves as a place where the
populace can be freely access information. This free access is the foundation of our
democracy as people can freely get and use information to inform their choices,
personally and politically. When the anonymity that allows this free access is breached,
democracy suffers. Patrons are compromised by having to make the choice of sharing
their personal information for access to learning tools.
Page 4 of 5
As mentioned previously, the California State Library recommends that public libraries
no longer provide LinkedIn Learning until the company changes its new use policy so
that it protects the privacy of library users. Not only does LinkedIn Learning refuse to
acknowledge the fundamental right to privacy that is central to the guarantee libraries
make to their customers, but it seeks to use personal information provided by library
patrons in various ways, including sharing it with third parties. (Attachments 1-3)
Other Options
San Rafael Library and the MARINet Digital Resources Working Group having been
looking into other online learning products. A list of potential replacement products has
been provided and can be viewed at https://chooseprivacyeveryday.org/online-learning-
platforms/ .
These alternatives include: Gale Courses from Gale-Cengage, Knowledge City,
Skillsoft, Universal Class distributed by RBdigital, Accel5 from EBSCO, and Treehouse.
In addition, there is much online learning that can be accessed free on YouTube and
from sources such as Khan Academy.
Kanopy
When Kanopy was dropped by New York Public Library (NYPL), Kanopy emailed all the
users to notify them that the NYPL had stopped the service and encouraged them to
complain to the library. This misuse of customer information is a further reason to cease
business with this vendor. In addition, Kanopy regularly sends users electronic mail
(email) to encourage them to access additional content, thus incurring additional costs
for the library. (Attachment 4)
As pointed out in the article in Variety, the Kanopy pay-per-use model is inherently
unsustainable. Increased popularity of the service rapidly creates an untenable situation
where the library can not keep up with demand. This fact combined with the aggressive
messaging by Kanopy to encourage all the users who sign up to use the maximum
allowable plays make it difficult for the public library to budget and control costs.
(Attachment 5)
FISCAL IMPACT
Eliminating both electronic resource providers would produce a savings of
approximately $16,406 in the current fiscal year (FY 2019/2020). On-going savings
would be approximately $23,000 annually.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
Any other action as determined by the Board of Trustees
Page 5 of 5
Submitted by:
Henry Bankhead
Interim Library Director
Attachments:
1. Criticism of LinkedIn Learning’s Policies Grows _ Library Journal
2. ALA urges LinkedIn Learning to reconsider changes to terms of service that
impair library users’ privacy rights _ News and Press Center
3. Libraries guarantee patrons’ privacy. That’s why LinkedIn’s policy is so troubling
4. Unkind Rewind (Kanopy)
5. New York City Public Libraries Drop Kanopy Free Movie-Streaming Service
8/7/2019 Criticism of Linkedln Learning 's Policies Grow s I Library Journal
Attachment 1
Criticism of Linkedln Learning's Policies Grows
by Matt Enis
Jul 25, 2019 I Filed in News
Linkedln Learning, which acquired Lynda.com in 2015, recently
announced that all users of the platform's online training programs will
be required to create or log into a Linkedln account to access the
content. The new terms of service would also apply to LyndaLibrary
users who access the platform through library subscriptions.
Previously, subscribing libraries could offer patrons access to
LyndaLibrary's training videos on topics ranging from video
production to project management using only a library card.
Requiring library users to create a Linkedln account would provide the
Microsoft subsidiary with a patron's email address, first and last name,
lynda .com
and any personal work and education information or professional contacts that the user chooses
to input into the career networking platform . In addition, unless subscribing libraries create
alternate credentialing systems, logging in would still require a patron's library card number,
linking it to a significant amount of personal information in a database controlled by a third party.
Samantha Lee, Intellectual Freedom Committee Chair of the Connecticut Library Association and
Head of Reference Services for the Enfield Public Library, first reported on the potential privacy
implications in a detailed June 4 guest P-OSt on the American Library Association's (ALA)
Intellectual Freedom Blog.
Lee wrote that: "the ... patrons who are turning to LyndaLibrary to improve their technology
skills ... may not know to protect their [personally identifiable information] or practice good digital
hygiene . Linkedln is strategically taking advantage of technology novices all the while fleecing
money from limited library budgets."
She added that the issue had been discussed on Connecticut library listservs and said that
some librarians in the state had begun contacting their account representatives . "When pushed
on the patron privacy concerns, [Linkedln Learning representatives] failed to adequately address
the privacy concerns," Lee wrote . "As a result, a few libraries have reported that they would not
be renewing their contracts with LyndaLibrary/Linkedln Learning."
In a June 28 response to the nascent controversy titled "Our Commitment to Libraries ," Mike
Derezin, VP of Learning Solutions for Linkedln, wrote that "the migration from Lynda.com to
Linkedln Learning will give our library customers and their patrons access to 2x the learning
content, in more languages, and with a more engaging experience." Derezin claimed that the use
https://www.libraryjournal .com /?detailStory=criticism-of-linkedin-learnings-policies-grow s 1/2
8/7/2019 Criticism of LinkedIn Learning’s Policies Grows | Library Journal
https://www.libraryjournal.com/?detailStory=criticism-of-linkedin-learnings-policies-grows 2/2
8/7/2019 ALA urges Linked In Learning to reconsider changes to terms of service that impair library users ' privacy rights I News and Press Center
Attachment 2
ALA member
1 news
(/news/)
ALA urges Linkedln Learning to reconsider changes to terms of
service that impair library users' privacy rights
For Immediate Release
Mon, 07/22/2019
Contact:
Deborah Caldwell-Stone
Interim Director
Office for Intellectual Freedom
American Library Association
312-280-4224
dstone@ala.org (mailto:dstone@ala.org)
CHICAGO -Linked In Learning -formerly Lynda.com, a platform used by libraries to provide online learning
opportunities to library users -plans to make substantial changes to its terms of service that would
significantly impair library users' privacy rights.
Under Linked In Learning's new terms of service, a library card holder will need to create a Linked In profile in
order to access Linked In Learning. In addition to providing their library card number and PIN, users will have
to disclose their full name and email address to create a new Linked In profile or connect to their existing
profile. New users will have their Linked In profile set to public by default, allowing their full name to be
searched on Google and Linkedln.
ALA has long affirmed that the protection of library users' privacy and confidentiality rights are necessary for
intellectual freedom and are fundamental to the ethical practice of librarianship. ALA's Library Bill of Rights
(http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill) and its interpretations
(http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations/privacy) maintain that all library users have
the right to access library resources without disclosing their personally identifiable information (Pl I) to third
parties, and to be free from unreasonable intrusion into, or surveillance of, their lawful library use.
"The requirement for users of Linked In Learning to disclose personally identifiable information is completely
contrary to ALA policies addressing library users' privacy, and it may violate some states' library
confidentiality laws," said ALA President Wanda Kay Brown. "It also violates the librarian's ethical obligation
to keep a person's use of library resources confidential. We are deeply concerned about these changes to
the terms of service and urge Linked In and its owner, Microsoft, to reconsider their position on this."
ALA has long encouraged library vendors to respect the privacy and confidentiality of library users, observe
the law, and conform to the professional statements of ethics that protect library users' privacy, including the
ALA Code of Ethics (http://www.ala.org/tools/ethics) and the NISO Consensus Principles on Users' Digital
Privacy in Library, Publisher, and Software-Provider Systems. (https://www.niso.org/publications/privacy-
principles)
www.ala.org/news/member-news/2019/07/ala-urges-linkedin-learning-reconsider-changes-terms-service-impair-library 1/2
8/7/2019 ALA urges LinkedIn Learning to reconsider changes to terms of service that impair library users’ privacy rights | News and Press Center
www.ala.org/news/member-news/2019/07/ala-urges-linkedin-learning-reconsider-changes-terms-service-impair-library 2/2
(/news/feed/press-
releases/rss.xml)
Subscribe
(/news/feed/press-
releases/rss.xml)
Libraries and librarians who wish to share their concerns about the proposed changes in to LinkedIn
Learning’s terms of service and to voice their support for protecting library users’ privacy rights should
communicate with Farhan Syed, Vice President of Client Solutions at fsyed@linkedin.com
(mailto:fsyed@linkedin.com).
Tags
Intellectual Freedom (/news/taxonomy/term/786), Professional Resources (/news/taxonomy/term/1966),
Public Awareness (/news/taxonomy/term/861), Intellectual Freedom Round Table
(/news/taxonomy/term/640), American Library Association (/news/taxonomy/term/532), Office for Intellectual
Freedom (/news/taxonomy/term/618)
Attachment 3
Libraries guarantee patrons' privacy. That's why Linkedln's policy is so
troubling
By Greg Lucas and Erin Berman, Special to CalMatters
One of the reasons communities place so much trust in their libraries is the
privacy and confidentiality provided to everyone who uses their services.
Ensuring the privacy and confidentiality of library users is fundamental to the
operation of all libraries. Everywhere. It is an article of faith among librarians.
Like many other states, California has placed these protections into law:
"All patron use records of any library which is in whole or in part supported by
public funds shall remain confidential and shall not be disclosed by a public
agency, or private actor that maintains or stores patron use records on behalf
of a public agency, to any person, local agency, or state agency ."
But protecting someone else's privacy-let alone our own-is difficult in an age
of frenzied social media sharing, not-so-impregnable firewalls, and marketers
eager to better target their products.
Most sellers of physical or digital information to libraries respect the primacy of
user privacy. To maintain the community's trust, library vendors must adhere
to the same code of ethics librarians employ every day.
At the moment, Linkedln, the online business and employment service
purchased by Microsoft in 2016 for $26.2 billion, is violating that ethical code
and the policies set forth by the American Library Association.
Linkedln is creating new usage rules for people at libraries who want to
access Linked In Learning, formerly Lynda.com, an online learning platform
that Linkedln acquired for $1.5 billion in 2015.
Currently, when Lynda.com is accessed through a library, a user logs in with
her or his library card and a PIN. No other personal information is required.
Under the new Linkedln Learning policy, library users would be required to
create a personal, publicly searchable, profile and agree to Linkedln 's user
agreement and privacy policy before being able to use Linkedln Learning.
Checking off the user agreement grants Linked In the power to share the
information contained in a personal profile with whoever Linkedln wants.
Representatives from libraries around the country have met with LinkedIn,
asking that they respect the privacy rights of library users. To date, LinkedIn
has refused to do so, stating that the requirement to create a LinkedIn profile
is a security measure to prevent fraudulent access to LinkedIn’s content.
These new accounts will be subject to an artificial intelligence tool that
determines if a person is a real user, LinkedIn says.
This removes the authority of libraries to authenticate who is a real user or
not.
When asked why a public social media profile is the only option for
authenticating users, LinkedIn told libraries that the “library market” wasn’t a
significant enough revenue stream to warrant creation of a custom solution.
Bottom-line: The new policy being adopted by LinkedIn Learning, forces
patrons to share their personal information to access a library resource.
Doing so violates every possible definition of privacy and makes it antithetical
to the values at the core of what libraries and librarians stand for. No wonder
the American Library Association hasexpressed concern over LinkedIn
Learning’s terms of service.
Hopefully, LinkedIn Learning will modify its policy to respect the privacy of
library users. Until then, the California State Library and a growing number of
libraries across the country respectfully urge the use of information resources
at public libraries that don’t expose patrons’ personally identifiable information
and keeps their library use free from unreasonable intrusion or surveillance.
—
Greg Lucas is the State Librarian of
California, greg.lucas@library.ca.gov. Erin Berman is a division director at
Alameda County Library and chair of the American Library Association’s
Intellectual Freedom Committee’s Privacy
Subcommittee, erinberman@aclibrary.org. They wrote this commentary for
CalMatters.
WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU
8/7/2019 Unkind Rewind
Attachment 4
INSIDE
HIGHER ED
Published on Inside Higher Ed
(httRs://www.insidehighered.com)
Home > Unkind Re wind
Unkind Rewind
Submitted by Barbara Fister on June 26 , 2019 -7 :24pm
Blog: Library Babel Fish [11
I noticed the other day that someone was mad at the New York Public Library
for dropping Kanopy, a film streaming service. My response was "yeah,
libraries are dropping it all over the place because its freaking expensive ."
(The Brooklyn and Queens Pls, which are separate from NYPL, are also
dropping the service.) My next thought was "and dear lord , we have been here
before , so many times ." But before I could put that into words, my respected
colleague and friend @LibSkrat beat me to it [21 with some pointed
commentary.
To recap : Kanopy is one of the vendors libraries turn to for bundled content, in
this case films. The more people get used to streaming at home, the more
libraries feel they have to provide it, too, but it's very expensive, the invoices
keep streaming in along with the video , and what you get the bundle , which
may not be the videos your community actually wants to see . (Sound familiar?)
Behind all this are the creators, distributors, and other middle-folk who want
their piece of the action and can pull content out without warning , as well as
the investors -a private equity firm invested in Kanopy recently, and they tend
to want their profits. In an academic library environment, this makes it tricky
when you have to pay again and again for the ability to stream a video that a
faculty member uses in a course taught every other year -and then might
have that video drop out of the package without warning . Public library users
have different concerns, but generally films, like books and journal articles, are
fairly non-substitutable .
What kicked up all the ruckus wasn't just that a library was dropping a bundle
of digital stuff it could no longer afford, but the way library users found out
about it. They got an email from Kanopy, personally addressed to them by
https://www.insidehighered.com/prin t/blogs /library-babel-fish/unkind-rew ind 1/3
8/7/2019 Unkind Rewind
https://www.insidehighered.com/print/blogs/library-babel-fish/unkind-rewind 2/3
name, to express how disappointed the company was. It’s creepy and wrong
for vendors to use patron information (the privacy of which is often protected
by law) to essentially make a sneaky sales pitch. Additionally, the end users
don’t know how much things cost, and many library licenses include a non-
disclosure clause. (Follow the University of Virginia’s lead [3] and strike them
out – they are unacceptable.)
Even if the information is not deliberately concealed, it’s not widely known.
Kanopy charges a fee if so little as 30 seconds of a film is viewed, and if three
patrons watch a film it, it triggers a bill of around $150. For one year. Then you
start over. Even if few people use the service – NYPL estimates only 1 percent
of their patrons have – the costs add up. In contrast, a library can purchase
copies of films on DVD and share them without extra fees tacked on. Owning a
physical copy comes with more rights than a license conveys, but libraries
have a habit of assuming they will become instantly irrelevant if they don’t sign
on for digital deals.
We’ve done this so, so many times. A vendor offers a package that seems
pretty good. Wow, that’s a lot of content! And that one-size-fits-all approach
sure saves time, not having to match content to your users’ interests. Then
people get used to the convenience and it’s hard to pull the plug when the
price goes up. And up. And up.
People who pay ten bucks for an ebook beach read and drop 9 bucks a month
for Netflix don’t know that the beach read borrowed for free from a library costs
the library many times more than a hardcover, can only be used by one person
at a time, and has to be paid for again after it has been borrowed a couple of
dozen times. They don’t know that video streaming isn’t like Netflix and isn’t
free after all [4].
My advice for library users is don’t yell at libraries if they have to drop a
service. It’s not their fault, and arguing that we should just give them more
money doesn’t solve the always-rising cost problem. For librarians, my advice
is to resist the shiny and trust we are relevant, to value the rights we
traditionally have when we purchase content, and push for transparency and
8/7/2019 Unkind Rewind
https://www.insidehighered.com/print/blogs/library-babel-fish/unkind-rewind 3/3
fairness in licensing deals. I know, we do – but somehow, we keep falling for
the same schtick.
Barbara Fister [5]
Source URL: https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/library-babel-fish/unkind-rewind
Links
[1] https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/library-babel-fish
[2] https://twitter.com/LibSkrat/status/1143512430024245248
[3] https://www.library.virginia.edu/policies/nondisclosure-clauses-in-licenses/
[4] https://filmquarterly.org/2019/05/03/kanopy-not-just-like-netflix-and-not-free/
[5] https://www.insidehighered.com/users/barbara-fister