Public Comment Ruben Juarez - June 18, 2026 Library Commission meeting

Public Comment:

My name is Ruben and I'm a Union officer and frontline worker. And there are a few items I wanted to bring up. I noticed a change in the order of the agenda topics last meeting with draft minutes being put at the end at of the meeting. Why the change? Maybe you can discuss at when we discuss this part and find out why it was moved to the end. 

Regarding the capital project presentation in May and the discussion of Ocean View branch, I believe it was important to list the Orizaba Way location prior to the meeting under evaluating opportunities. I believe it deserved a mentioned on the list for no other reason than getting clarification on a project that has been discussed broadly with the public. 

Don't our patrons deserve to be told where things are in the process? But more pointedly, I think it's important going forward where are we with the current location so we get more feedback on that piece. 

Where are we with the use of a slur in this forum? We had a variety of us come up and speak to it. Will some clarification be given on such language on how such language will be addressed in future meetings?

Public Comment on the City Librarian's report

There's so much there. There's so much wonderful things our workers do, all our staffs do. Because we learned about the summer dip that when the school year gets out, the propensity to dip. And there we jump in happily, readily to serve our patrons, to provide the presentation that Iliana so skillfully shared with us all. 

I think one of the commensurate challenges is the staffing levels to meet the demand.  I've come and spoken before but at this point I just wanted to dig in a little that to meet all the needs for our patrons requires you know happily like I said providing the service but one of the challenges is enough staffing being provided the extra hours to staff the programming and all the other pieces that go into it. 

It's just something for you all to consider when you're looking at uh what a wonderful service we provide and happily do so.

Public Comment Jason Gibbs - June 18, 2026 Library Commission meeting

 Jason Gibbs, retired librarian. 

My return to participating at library commission meetings has lasted a little over a year now. My former colleagues have been encouraging me to continue doing this so I can speak for them.

Today's commission is different from that of 30 years ago. That commission conducted business, held committee meetings, passed numbered resolutions. It was a substantive body. The current purpose of commission meetings is to polish an apple. The frankly delicious and beautiful apple that is the library. 

The city librarian has restructured library priorities to assemble a cadre of apple shiners to dazzle you. Public comment is your opportunity to ignore what's not going right beneath that shine. 

Your May 2026 meeting included an impressive presentation on staff appreciation and recognition. I was stupified to learn how much library administration values the library's employees and how appreciated library employees feel. Nothing like the library I worked for last year. 

I later spoke with staff at the main and branches and asked them about this sudden turnaround of staff morale. You may be shocked to learn that they fullthroatedly contradicted what we heard at last month's meeting. 

Do all of you know the Peanuts comic strip? One of the constant tropes is Lucy offering to place the football so that Charlie Brown can kick a field goal. He has grown wise to the fact that she's going to take the football away at the last minute. He's knows he's going to end up flat on his back. 

Welcome to the experience of the ambassadors for the San Francisco Public Library strategic plan. Several ambassadors told me about their first meeting with the Gensler crew. It was quite contentious. They knew about Lucy and Charlie Brown and expected that they would be asked to devote a good deal of time and thought into this exercise and find their contributions ignored in the final product. They were told that wouldn't be so, but they were right. It's a very old management trick. invite staff participation to present a notion of consensus and then take the project in the direction that they had intended to from the start. 

Throughout ambassadors were concerned mostly about safety and professional growth for staff. One ambassador tried to put it generously: The final plan translated the work of the library into balderdash. Circulating books is resource providing. Answering questions is thoughtful navigation. The resulting plan had nothing to do with anything they suggested. It became apparent that their role was to rubber stamp the City Librarian's pre-established goals. Lucy snatched away the football again. 

The leadership of the library can set any strategic priorities they like. They have done so. They don't even need your vote. It's going to take a lot of training to convince staff to believe in those priorities, but the library disbanded the training committee and the reference committee and the collections committee. Thoughtful navigation anyone? 

I've observed that the the current Library Commission is a powerless entity. The commissions of old actually managed the City Librarian, went into close session to conduct an annual appraisal. But you are here to shine the apple and you do it well. 

But you love data and surveys. I challenge the library to survey the staff on their morale, their safety, opportunities for growth, and on their opinion of the strategic plan and the city librarian. The results may not shine. 

Public Comment - City Librarian's Report

I really like the tote bag because the message is clear -  Read. But I'm a little puzzled that the learning goal or actually, is it a learning goal as opposed to a reading goal. It's it's just all the combin combined ways that it's possible to get this instead of just reading - the learning, listening, library time. I just think it should really be about the reading. 

Public Comment Anonymous Citizen - June 18, 2026 Library Commission meeting

Anonymous citizen

Good afternoon, commissioners. Speaking as an anonymous citizen, of course, and stop the hate, stop the ignorance, don't give money to the Friends of the Library, don't accept money from the Friends of the Library.

There is a very common literary conceit to take a real circumstance and put an fictional character into it in order to fully explore the implications. The tessential example is a Scottish sailor set ashore on a deserted coast and somebody says, "Aha, Robinson Crusoe."

So, let's do that. Let's take a fictional character, appoint him to the Library Commission, and make his very first commission meeting March 2026. Rich with possibilities, right? We need a fictional name since he's a fictional character. So, let's call him Josiah Bartlett.

Mr. Bartlett has never been to a library commission meeting, never even sat in the audience, which is typical. Before he sits down at his first meeting, he is told that the library commission that he is joining has been breaking the law for more than a year by illegally limiting public comment in an evident attempt to deter public participation.

The first thing that Josiah Bartlett says is, "Wow, San Francisco has a commission system to assure public participation." That's what they teach you in a high school. The second thing he says is, "Who do we fire?" I have a reputation for honesty and integrity. Integrity implies accountability. Nothing says accountability like firing someone. Besides, if someone let us into this, they really deserve to be fired. 

Next, we have to honor the person who blew the whistle and got this fixed. Most importantly, we have to apologize to the citizens whose rights were affected, assure them they have our deepest regrets and that it won't happen again. 

The City Librarian comes to him and says, "We're not going to do that. We undercut those laws completely because they promote democracy and reason. The city's librarian says, "Well, we undercut reason because we're the elite. And if they acknowledge reason at all, we won't be elite. Intelligent will be the elite." 

The Josiah Bartlett says, "Wait a minute. If we are against democracy and we're against reason aren't the advocates of reason and democracy our enemies? And the City Librarian says, "Aha, welcome to the library commission." Well, Josiah Bartley says, "I'm profoundly against this big, but it's going to take me a few minutes to organize my thoughts. Perhaps we'll hear what he thinks in July. 

Jason Gibbs - illegal public comment time limits

Jason Gibbs, retired librarian. 

Coming to these meetings again, I sometimes feel a bit like Rip Van Winkle. I last participated in commission meetings in the early 1990s. It may seem quaint now, but back then when we opened the meetings by standing up, placing our hands over our hearts, and pledged allegiance to the flag in the Lurie Room - yes, that Lurie family. This gesture of solidarity of commissioners and the public took 15 seconds.

Out of curiosity, I recently had the notion to research the evolution of the bylaws of the Commission. One statement has remained in the bylaws. "The commission shall hold meetings open to the public and encourage the participation of interested persons." Attending these few meetings, I have seen that each of you is accomplished, intelligent, dedicated, attentive, and wants to support the library and its users. I hope you would assume that the interested persons who attend these meetings share your outlook. There was always a barrier of sorts between the public and the government and the exhortation to encourage participation is the way to lower that barrier.

In the searly 1990s, when I began attending meetings, the bylaws stated no time limit for public comment. By the mid-90s, the commission adopted a 4-minute time limit, which by the end of the decade dropped to three minutes. In March 2024, the commission acted to amend the bylaws. Four present members of the Commission cast votes to do so. The current amended bylaws continue to state that each member of the public can address the commission for up to three minutes. 

 
The bylaws are a legal document vetted by the city attorney's office. Every meeting I've attended, the commission has violated its own bylaws. Bylaws that current commissioners approved. If you cut me off before three minutes have transpired, you are violating your own rules. You must either follow your bylaws or amend them. The public should learn the rationale for limiting public participation. If you amend the bylaws to shorten the time limit, you could also amend the statement about encouraging participation. But I cannot believe that you really want to discourage participation.

The people who stand on this side of the microphone are not the enemies of the library or of the Commission.

Commission President Wolf illegally interrupting [2 minutes have transpired]: 

Thank you for your comments.

Jason Gibbs

 
Everyone here supports the San Francisco Public Library. Thank you. 

Commissioner Wolf:  

Any further public comment? Seeing there's no further public comment, public comments closed. I just want to thank everyone for participating so actively today and passionately.

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY COMMISSION

Minutes of theRegular Meeting of DECEMBER 18, 2025

The San Francisco Public Library Commission held a regular meeting DECEMBER 18, 2025, atthe Koret Auditorium, Main Library and virtually on Zoom.

The SFPLCommissionmeeting was called to order at 4:30 PM.

Commissioners Present: Wolf, Huang, Lomax Ghirarduzzi, Lopez, Bolander, Jones and Calhoun. President Wolf presented the ancestral homeland acknowledgement ofthe Ramaytush Ohlone.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT

Public Comment

Peter Warfield, Executive Director of Library Users Association: Libraryusers2004@protonmail.com, PO Box 170544, San Francisco California 94117-0544, said the author talk was the fullest he has ever seen it, there was a lot of interest and he got a clear impression from the author of the book; she was not neutral about AI.

Emily Garvie, Executive Director, Friends of the Library: congratulated the Library for the One City One Book program and said the Friends is wrapping up its Annual Fund appeal and Mission Branch renovation campaign is in the home stretch.

Nicky: said Public Comment is perfunctory and he is not supportive of AI or the Library promoting it.

Jason Gibbs, former SFPL Librarian: Coming to these meetings again, I sometimes feel a little bit like a Rip Van Winkle. I actively participated in Commission meetings in the early 1990s. It may seem quaint now, but back then we opened the meetings by standing up, placing our hands over our hearts, facing the flag in the Lurie Room in the old building (yes, that Lurie family), and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. This gesture of solidarity between commissioners and the public took 15 seconds. 

Out of curiosity, I recently had the notion to research the evolution of the Bylaws of the Library Commission—particularly concerning public comment. One statement has remained constant in the bylaws: “The Commission shall hold meetings open to the public and encourage the participation of interested persons.” Attending these past few meetings, I have seen that each of you is accomplished, intelligent, dedicated, and attentive, and truly wants to support the library and its users. I hope you would assume that the “interested persons” who attend these meetings share your outlook. There is always a barrier of sorts between the public and government, and the exhortation to “encourage participation” is the way to lower that barrier. In the early 1990s, when I began attending meetings, the bylaws stated no time limit for public comment. By the mid-1990s, the Commission adopted a 4-minute time limit, which by the end of the decade dropped to 3 minutes. In March 2024, the Commission acted to amend the Bylaws. Four present members cast votes to do so. The current amended Bylaws continue to state that each member of the public can address the Commission “for up to three minutes.” 

The Bylaws are a legal document vetted by the City Attorney’s office. Every meeting I have attended, the Commission has violated its own bylaws— bylaws that current commissioners approved. If you cut me off before 3 minutes have transpired, you are violating your own rules. You must either follow your bylaws or amend them. The public should learn your rationale for limiting public participation. If you amend the bylaws to shorten the time limit, you could also amend the statement about encouraging participation. But I cannot believe that you really want to discourage participation. The people who stand on this side of the microphone are not enemies of the library or of the Commission. Everyone here supports the San Francisco Public Library.

AGENDA ITEMNO. 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES – NOVEMBER 20, 2025

Peter Warfield said he is concerned about the Library’s continual shrinking of privacy of the patrons, and he commented on a variety of other issues.

Jason Gibbs said there have been complaints of the minutes of the meetings have been brief and he looked up in the city charter what are required of minutes. Public comment 67.16 says that a summary of each statement should be included, that varies from one line to 5 lines. I don't know that is being violated here.

Commission Discussion

Motion: Motion by Commissioner LOMAX GHIRARDUZZI to approve the minutes with three changes seconded by Commissioner LOPEZ to approve the NOVEMBER 20, 2025, Commission Minutes.

Action: AYES 7-0 (Wolf, Huang, Lomax Ghirarduzzi, Lopez, Bolander, Jones and Calhoun)

AGENDA ITEM NO.3 FYS 2027 & 2028 ANNUAL BUDGET

Mike Fernandez, CFO, presented an overview of FYs 2027 & 2028 Budget Priorities including the three phases of the Budget process, the Budget calendar, how the priorities align with Vision 2030, the Budget environment and revenue outlook.

Public Comment

Jason Gibbs said the presentation was great, page 14 is interesting, and is curious about services of other departments, how that works and asked for cost savings breakdown and where the zero number for equipment came from.

Peter Warfield said he was stunned by $8 million in the category of community programs and partnerships and remember when they broke 1 million and they were amazed by that and asked about improving access to print of all kinds including improvements in the catalog and the speed with which print arrives.
Commission Discussion

Commissioner Bolander said there is a2.5 million delta between the approved budget and the estimate, the funding seems worse than last year.

Fernandez said they are seeing at the end of the last year there was a lot of momentum over there and all indications that it will continue. A lot of larger events are happening in the city and the surrounding areas that are onetime events that would indicate a good reason for positive outlook.

Vice President Huang asked what numbers on slide 15 could potentially change next time.

Fernandez said 27 through 29 will get revised as they get new information.

Commissioner Calhoun asked about the delta between full employment and actual employment. Where would they see that in the presentation.

AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 CITY LIBRARIAN’S REPORT

Michelle Jeffers, Chief of Community Programs and Partnerships, presented on the SF Drag Laureate and the Drag Story's 10th Anniversary. The 2025 Drag Laureate, Per Sia, was the first reader to perform a Drag Queen Story Hour a decade ago. They hosted the 10th Anniversary celebration at the Main Library, which included multiple story hours happening throughout the day, a parade through the building, crafts, play, food, and fun. Ten years ago, the City Librarian and Deputy recognized the importance of delivering and celebrating this community with an innovative and inclusive idea that was brought to the Library by Radar Productions. The Library does this because Drag Queen Story Hour sparks imagination and serves audiences with joyful, glamorous, and proudly queer role models. Kids are particularly able to see people who defy rigid gender restrictions, and they can be their authentic selves. City Librarian Michael Lambert reported on his trip to Taiwan at the invitation of the National Taiwan University Dean of the School of Learning and the Graduate Institute of Library and Information Studies. He served as the keynote speaker for the Library Association of the Republic of China (Taiwan) conference and visited many of the newly constructed and most innovative libraries in Taiwan, which are far ahead of SFPL. The reason they invited SFPL is because of how our libraries operate as social infrastructure—anchoring our communities, fostering shared experiences to bring our community together, encouraging civic engagement, amplifying culture, and celebrating diversity.

Public Comment

Peter Warfield said he wondered how books are pushed out from a vending machine device and asked where people browse the books, noting that's one of the ways people find materials of interest.

Jason Gibbs said he had the opportunity to go to National Taiwan University to present a paper, though he never made it into the library. He noted that Taiwan is a very impressive society and that they do not have some of the societal problems that we experience here in terms of its public. It is a very different society.

Commission Discussion

Commissioner Lopez congratulated Jeffers, noting that this work is challenging. She stated that Jeffers does a great job, does not give up, and keeps pushing; her initiative in dealing with everything the process entails is not easy, as there are people in this world who do not have an open mind. She also thanked the City Librarian for representing the San Francisco Public Library across continents, noting it is inspiring to learn what other libraries are doing. Commissioner Calhoun said the ten years of history is remarkable and asked where that history lives. Jeffers stated that the Hormel Center is the keeper of that history.

Commissioner Lomax Ghirarduzzi said Jeffers was the best in the nation, noting that no one does community work like her.

Commissioner Jones said it was incredible what Jeffers does during these moments where the Library is making history. As the budget gets leaner, he asked how one doubles down and leans into history-making moments—focusing on being the best at a few things versus doing many things. He also wondered about the role of merchandise when celebrating these milestones. Commissioner Jones thanked Lambert for showing them incredible libraries across the world, noting it pushes the Commission forward.

AGENDAITEM NO. 5 2026 COMMISSION MEETING CALENDAR Public Comment

Peter Warfield stated that cutting the second meeting in February is a pity and noted that there is no break in the summertime.

Commission Discussion

Motion: Motion by Vice President HUANG to approve the 2026 Commission Meeting Calendar seconded by Commissioner CALHOUN.

Action: AYES 7-0 (Wolf, Huang, Lomax Ghirarduzzi, Lopez, Bolander, Jones and Calhoun) 

AGENDAITEM NO. 6 ELECTION OF 2026 OFFICERS

Public Comment

Peter Warfield stated that it is a pity the Commission does not have nominations prior to public comment, as this requires members of the public to address everyone generally rather than speaking to specific nominees. Commission Discussion

Commissioner Lopez nominated President Wolf to be the 2026 Commission President, which Wolf accepted. Action: AYES 7-0 (Wolf, Huang, Lomax Ghirarduzzi, Lopez, Bolander, Jones and Calhoun)

Vice President Huang thanked the Commission for the opportunity to serve and nominated Commissioner Calhoun as the 2026 Vice President; the nomination was accepted by Calhoun.

Action: AYES 7-0 (Wolf, Huang, Lomax Ghirarduzzi, Lopez, Bolander, Jones and Calhoun)

THE MEETING ADJOURNED at 6:23 PM

Margot Shaub, Commission Affairs Analyst

Commission Affairs Analyst, Main Library, San Francisco, CA 94102-4733

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