Thoughtful Navigator - only a euphemism?

Jason Gibbs - comment at the March 19, 2026 Mid-Year Progress Report

I long had trouble conceptualizing the euphemism "Thoughtful Navigator." So I turned to AI and got a very inspiring answer from Grok. Here's a long quote. 

It's someone who treats navigation as an ethical and intellectual practice rather than a mechanical task. They plan rigorously but remain flexible. The map is not the territory. Anticipate ripple effects. What happens two steps or two decades downstream. 

Listen to the environment and to other people instead of imposing a preconceived route. 

Find beauty and meeting in the process itself, not just in arrival. 

You see this quality in the quiet sailor who double-checks the log at 3:00 a.m., the leader who asks, "What are we missing?" before committing a team, the parent who guides a child without controlling them, or the researcher who follows curiosity wherever it leads while still keeping the bigger question in view. 

In short, to be a thoughtful navigator is to steer, not by force or fear, but by attentive presence. It is the art of moving wisely when no one else can see the full picture yet. 

Vision 2030 purports to apply this to a library service, but it should apply even more toward leadership culture of the San Francisco Public Library where everything is top down. Everything is very siloed. They wallow in numbers. Big numbers good, small numbers bad. And in fact, they only know staff and their contributions through numbers. And of course, nobody ever considers the possibility of the future harm their visions may cause. 

Moving to one of the specifics in the Vision 2030 report, there was a mention of training. The staff training and development committee Stadcom [The Staff Development Committee] has been in hibernation for a while. It consists of a chair and nobody else. There's apparently no funding for staff to attend workshops or sessions at conferences. The library cannot provide coverage to staff to attend the trainings they want within the library and city or even provide adequate time to take online or pre-recorded training. 

So staff asks, they continue to ask, "How can the library support us in attending professional conferences and taking professional level workshops so we can stay informed and relevant?" They also don't understand what it means when you report says of staff development projects that "two are in flight and two are completed." 

It's actually rather kind of traumatizing to some of us to hear in the building-in-flight because during our service as Disaster Service Workers, we were constantly being told that we were building the airplane as we were flying it. And what that meant is we were in the middle of a huge, confusing anxiety producing mess. 

But the library is not in a disaster emergency. It has had established systems that worked and these have been replaced only by a vision. 

Jason Gibbs' statement on Library Commission violation of the Sunshine Ordinance and Censorship by the San Francisco Public Library

Transcript of Public Comment at the March 19, 2026 meeting

During your December 2025 meeting I tried to prevail upon the members of this body to follow their bylaws and allow the stipulated up to 3 minutes of public comment. I realize that not all of you sat on the commission then. Since you ignored my request I appealed to the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force on this matter. I learned a great deal during this process including that the 3 minute language is part of the Brown Act enshrined in the Sunshine Ordinance and is part of the City’s administrative code. That’s why your bylaws contain this language and why you can’t vote to change it.

On March 4, 2026 I prevailed - File No. 26015: Complaint filed by Jason Gibbs against the San Francisco Library Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section(s) 67.15, by failing to allow public comment for up to three minutes. The Commission analyst ably defended you in this instance, but there wasn’t much she could do because your action was indefensible. It was illegal.

I refer to this as “your action” because the Library Commission was the named party in the matter, but it might be more unsavory than that. You never acted on this matter. Any change in public comment time must be made at the sole discretion of the Commission’s presiding officer on a meeting by meeting basis not by an administrative analyst. Any of you could have questioned the library’s actions yet you let it continue for 13 consecutive meetings.

In January 2025 at the outset of this illegal practice the administrative analyst only said that “leadership decided.” Who was leading? Is the Library Commission the passive proxy of the Library’s administration? I ask you to carefully ask yourselves that. You all have impressive life and work experience and are very worthy of serving on the commission. I have heard moments of brilliant insight in your discussions at meetings. You are very smart people and I’m sure you want to do what is right.

The Administrative Code states that you are here to serve the public’s interest. You are a governance body that “provides oversight and direction” to the work of the Library. You represent the people out here and many more people you cannot see who use the library. You don’t represent the people seated at the far ends of the table.

As representatives of the government you suppressed legally guaranteed speech. Isn’t that called censorship? I cannot imagine you that consciously desired to censor, yet you continued to do so for more than a year. The administrative code also states:

“The willful failure of any elected official, department head, or other managerial city employee to discharge any duties imposed by the Sunshine Ordinance, the Brown Act or the Public Records Act shall be deemed official misconduct.”

Please put the public first.

San Francisco Public Library Commission March 19, 2026 meeting

San Francisco Public Library Commission
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 19, 2026
The SFPL Commission meeting was called to order at 4:30 PM

Meeting opened following the Ramaytush Ohlone land acknowledgement.

Commissioners Present: President Calhoun, Vice President Jones, Commissioner Huang, Commissioner Lopez, Commissioner Bolander, Commissioner Kenaston, Commissioner Menon.

Staff presenters / participants: Margot Shaub (Commission Affairs Analyst); City Librarian Michael Lambert; Chief of Public Services Dolly Goyal; Chief Analytics Officer Randy McClure; Youth Services Manager Ileana Poulou; Hai Ching Chen (Chinese Center Program Manager); Sachiko Iwibuchi (Japanese Language Librarian).

AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT

Jason Gibbs, retired librarian, reported prevailing at the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force (File No. 26015) requiring three minutes public comment; criticized past two-minute limits and urged the Commission to prioritize public oversight and free speech obligations under the Brown Act/Sunshine Ordinance.

Citizen Summary:

During your December 2025 meeting I tried to prevail upon the Commission to follow their bylaws and allow 3 minute public comment. Unsuccessful here, I appealed to the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. On March 4, 2026 I prevailed in “File No. 26015: Complaint filed by Jason Gibbs against the San Francisco Library Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section(s) 67.15, by failing to allow public comment for up to three minutes.” While the Commission was the named party in the matter you visibly never acted on this matter and allowed it to continue for 13 consecutive meetings even after being warned that it was improper. The Administrative Code states that the commission exists to serve the public’s interest. It are a governance body that “provides oversight and direction” to the work of the Library and should represent the public and not library leadership. 

Anonymous citizen accused the Commission of “elitism” and questioned unannounced changes in comment time 2 to 3 minutes and warned against serial meetings; urged respect for democratic process.

Citizen Summary:

General Public Comment Anonymous commenter said stop the hate, stop the ignorance, don’t give money to or accept money from the Friends of the Library. I came in February of 2025 to commemorate the fifty-year anniversary of my attendance at Library Commission meetings. I was so “horrified,” that I forgot to mention it. The institution is “Public” “Library.” Yet, anti-intellectual elitist are appointed Library Commissioners. Real elitism would be based on positive elements. Demeaning and denigrating the public to establish elitism demonstrates how thin commissioner’s elitism really is. Commissioners who cared would encourage even the less elite public. You granted three minutes of public comment on the agenda without any reference to who did it or why. Reduction to two minutes in January 2025, was also without rationalization. You are totally neglectful and oblivious to responsibility, or you have illegal seriatim meeting to make secret decisions. Respect for democracy would recognize both as equally bad. 

Peter Warfield, Executive Director of Library Users Association Libraryusers2004@protonmail.com, PO Box 170544, San Francisco California 94117-0544 faulted lack of clear announcement of 3-minute change; cited prior interruptions and minutesthat incompletely or misleadingly summarize public comments; raised concerns about AI/social media risks and privacy.

Kate Lazarus, Board, Friends of the Public Library, updated on the Mission/Chinatown remodels; Friends advocacy to restore $3.2M to the California Library Services Act; ongoing charter reform monitoring with no proposed changes to the Library Preservation Fund.

AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 12, 2026 MINUTES

Public Comment

Anonymous citizen argued drafts misrepresent/omit significant portions of prior remarks (e.g., Lynn Davidson, Peter Warfield, Jason Gibbs) and omitted Ruben Juarez entirely; urged accurate, complete minutes.

Citizen summary:

Anonymous commenter said stop the hate, stop the ignorance don’t give money to or accept money from the Friends of the Library. The City Librarian described new commissioners with comments of “millions of dollars in political giving” and “wealth management leader.” Qualifications as library commissioners would be included in the minutes. Item No. 1, Lyn Davidson’s first ten seconds are summarized. Omitting her emphasizing the role of labor is a gross misrepresentation. Peter Warfield also summarized for the first ten seconds. Omitting his point that this Commission was deliberately neglecting the important violations of privacy is a gross misrepresentation. Jason Gibbs was summarized for a minute, management’s failure to provide follow-up was not included. Ruben Juarez followed Jason Gibbs reinforcing the importance of accurate data. With no convenient way to misrepresent him, you just left him out Just erased him. Was there not a single comment from any commissioners under the budget discussion. 

 
Jason Gibbs requested explicitly including Ruben Juarez’s comments in the minutes.

Peter Warfield detailed substantive points he felt were missing (privacy audit; whistleblower Frances Haugen testimony; Surgeon General concerns; risks of uncritical social media promotion) and asked for accurate attribution of his email address and comments.

Commission Discussion

 
Commissioners proposed returning the minutes for revision rather than approving language absent exact corrections; suggestion review and bring back to April Commission meeting.

Motion: Motion by Commissioner JONES to bring back the February 12, 2026 minutes to the next meeting; seconded by Commissioner LOPEZ
Action: AYES 7-0 (Calhoun, Jones, Huang, Lopez, Bolander, Menon and Kenaston

AGENDA ITEM NO.3 VISION2030 MID-YEAR PROGRESS REPORT

Dolly Goyal, Chief of Public Services, presented Vision 2030 Mide Year Progress Report

Public Comment
Anonymous commenter criticized perceived “elitism,” questioned “right-sizing” as euphemism for book dumping; argued for preserving literacy and culture.

Citizen summary:

Anonymous commenter said stop the hate, stop the ignorance, don’t give money to or accept money from the Friends of the Library. My goodness! Did anyone understand that? Will this item appear in the minutes as a Powerpoint only without any of the staff’s presentation or any of your questions as last month’s budget discussion did? You are desperate to establish your elitism but your anti-intellectualism is unquestioned. Something called “right-sizing the collection” is now being blamed on the pandemic? Can that be anything but another euphemism for book dumping? This once prime research library has become an expensive alternative for Netflix. Will the public’s cherishing can be extended through college. You look for popularity rather than value. People will recognize that. You are abandoning literacy, intellect, culture and learning for what is popular. 

 
Youth Advisory Board intern advocated for continued investment in teen spaces across districts for safety,study, and social connection.

 
Peter Warfield warned of “de-bookification,” challenged “misalignment” rationale, and raised concerns about electronic-only titles and long holds; urged caution about social media and AI harms to youth.

 
Jason Gibbs offered an extended reflection on “thoughtful navigator” ideals, questioned training resourcing and asked for support for staff professional development time/funding.

 
Commission Discussion

 
Commissioner Menon asked about YAB–nonprofit connections; Poulou described first-year environmental scan, partnerships, teen-led program design, branch evaluations, outreach, and field trips (e.g., SF State).

Commissioner Huang pressed for visibility into data & analytics, workforce culture, and systems/operations; staff previewed patron churn analysis, equity zone mapping, HR initiatives (employee shout-outs; standard training).

Commissioner Jones encouraged organizing KPIs under thematic micro-pillars (e.g., celebration & collaboration) and blending quantitative and qualitative feedback; suggested an “engagement model” lens for CTS relabeling outcomes.

Commissioner Lopez requested clearer visuals distinguishing completed vs. active work and mapping projects to Vision 2030 goals; asked detailed questions on YAB selection/process/roles and K2C partnership responsibilities.

Commissioner Bolander praised the difficult culture shift toward outcomes/OKRs; asked for clearer visual reporting; staff emphasized accessibility work and cross-department learning.

AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 PUBLIC SERVICES PERFOMANCE MEASURES MID YEAR REPORT
Randle McClure, Chief RSA, presented Public Services Performance Measures Mid-Year Report

Public Comment

Anonymous Commenter Anonymous urged fuller minutes that capture cross-item overlap and substantive Commission discussions. 

Citizen Summary:

Library Commission President introduces public comment with the implied threat that the relevance of our comments might be narrowly construed and ruled out of order. Really? Don’t all of these issues overlap with each other? At the last meeting you had very crucial comments about the budget, particularly Commissioner Jones, that you should be reminded of. The previous item on the mid-year report pointed out that you should pay attention to details, note how things work, be thoughtful and accessible. Will that discussion be reflected in the minutes? Will you take that to heart? You have been dumbing down yourselves persistently. In this crucial transition in library service we need to be thoughtful. It is about the role of the library, not patron satisfaction. You should be open to all public comment. 

Jason Gibbs asked whether e-resource usage is reflected in active card status praised circulation gains as evidence of effective “rightsizing.”

 
Peter Warfield questioned survey methodology online-only sampling, noted hours consistently lowest, critiqued definitions, and asked about measures like visits per open hour.

 
Commission Discussion

Bolander asked for action plans to lift the bottom-three satisfaction areas(hours, website, programs). City Librarian Lambert contrasted SFPL 52.1 hours vs. national 41.9; reaffirmed all branches 7 days/week; next Open Hours Assessment in 2028.

McClure flagged DOJ ADA web requirements and the need to rethink the website for digital-native access over the next 3–5 years.

Huang explored Wi-Fi decline hypotheses, connectivity improvements, building factors.

Jones suggested benchmarking peer libraries and target-setting; posited a possible “analog third-space” trend where patrons choose books/conversation over Wi-Fi.

AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 CITY LIBRARIAN’S REPORT

Hai Ching Chen, Chinese Center Program Manager, recapped Lunar New Year programming.

Sachiko Iwibuchi, Main Librarian, highlighted the screening of “Paper Lanterns.”

City Librarian Michael Lambert reported collaboration with the Consulate General of Kazakhstan.

Public Comment

Peter Warfield praised the Kazakh concert but criticized perceived selectivity in event publicity, asking for better onsite print communications.

Commission Discussion

Menon asked how programming is strategized acrossthe year and the best waysfor the public to learn about offerings. Lambert cited the At The Library (ATL) monthly newsletter, flyers, website, and mobile app; acknowledged robust attendance and room for improvement; emphasized co-creation with partners and volume 15,000 programs/year. 

THE MEETING ADJOURNED at 6:37 PM