📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
San Joaquin County Grand Jury
• 2008-2009
Stockton-San Joaquin County Library
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 10 findings
F1
Page 63
The former Library Director created a new position of Program Director III and hired a friend from San Diego to fill the position at a management salary. Her primary responsibility was to raise funds for the library even though she had minimal experience in fund raising. The Grand Jury found no evidence of new fund development during her tenure. The new position was added even though the Library System already had a Deputy Director on the staff that could have performed the same function.
F2
Page 64
The former Director of Library Services was unable to demonstrate the requisite management skills or experience to manage this large library system. The Director’s management style was authoritarian which led the branch managers to believe that they were not appreciated and that their concerns and opinions were not heeded and did not count.
F3
Page 64
The former Director reassigned staff in an arbitrary manner with no input or prior notice. This unilateral action seemed to further entrench some staffers who were already resistant to change.
F4
Page 64
The former Director had an indifferent attitude toward staff safety at the main library. Even after several safety issues had been reported in the news media, the former Director refused to consider the purchase of personal safety alarms for the staff. When the employee union decided to purchase alarms, her attitude toward training staff to use them was indifferent.
F5
Page 64
The City Manager’s Office failed to oversee the operation of the Library System. It was the responsibility of a Deputy City Manager to oversee the Library Director. Ineffective and irresponsible oversight contributed to questionable library expenditures and low staff morale.
F6
Page 64
The former Director contracted with several consultants and vendors, including a personal life coach, a long-range strategic planning company, and an internet marketing vendor. Substantial expenses were incurred with virtually no benefit to the library system. For example, the City approved a non-competitive, single- source contract with Youniquely4U, a patron based internet marketing service to provide hardware, software and supplies for library checkout. The City paid approximately $75,000 on an untested $96,000 program with very little positive results. Youniquely4U service has been discontinued and the website has been closed.
F7
Page 64
The majority of library patrons still attempt to use the library as a source for new books. There is a strong perception, especially by patrons of the branches funded directly by the City of Stockton, that new books are generally unavailable. The current on-line reservation policy ensures patrons’ access to new books. This policy limits walk-in user access to these same new books.
F8
Page 64
Valuable historical special-collection materials are stored in an unsecured area of the Chavez Library. A current inventory of these materials does not exist.
F9
Page 64
A recent City Audit found $3.4 million in uncollected fines, fees and lost materials.
F10
Page 64
The Director of Community Services seems to have an understanding of the existing problems and how to remedy them. In the short time since the reorganization, she has worked with the staff to identify significant issues within the Library System and is working towards resolving them.
Recommendations 9
-
R1Page 62Implement an annual amnesty week which allows overdue books and materials to be returned to the library without fees or fines.
-
R2Page 62Immediately reallocate funds to increase the purchase of new books and materials.
-
R3Page 62The City Manager increase supervision of the Deputy City Manager for library services.
-
R4Page 62Implement a zero-tolerance policy with regard to late fees and fines.
-
R5Page 62The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors and Stockton City Council mutually establish and appoint citizens to a Library Advisory Commission. The Commission will report and make recommendations on matters pertaining to the operation of library services and facilities.
-
R6Page 62Revise the current policy to allow for a portion of new books to be placed on shelves so that walk-in customers have the opportunity to check them out.
-
R7Page 62Establish internal audit controls for library vendor/consultant contracts, fines and fees.
-
R8Page 62The historical special-collection materials be inventoried and stored in a secure area
-
R9Page 62The Director of Library Services receive an annual written performance evaluation. RESPONSE REQUIRED Pursuant to Section 933.05 of the California Penal Code: The Stockton City Council shall report to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court, in writing and of publication of this report, with a response as follows: The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors shall report to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court as to Recommendation #5, in writing and of publication of this report, with a response as follows: As to each finding in the report a response indicating one of the following: a. The respondent agrees with the finding. b. The respondent disagrees with the finding, with an explanation of the reasons therefore. As to each recommendation, a response indicating one of the following: a. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the action taken. b. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be with a time frame for implementation. c. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation of the scope of analysis and a time frame not to exceed six (6) months. d. The recommendation will not be implemented, with an explanation therefore.