Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - LB - 2001.03.20 URLINGAME PUBLIC LIBRARY ',[Board of Trustees Agenda March 20, 2001 — 4:30pm 480 Primrose Road — Board Room SUGGESTED ACTION 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. WARRANTS & SPECIAL FUND ✓ Approval 4. MINUTES Approval 5. CORRESPONDENCE AND INFORMATION Information a. Letter: Historical Society ✓ b. Statistics - December ✓ c. Kathleen R. et al v. City of Livermore ✓ d. Library Board Meetings 6. FROM THE FLOOR (Public Comments) -7. REPORTS Information a. City Librarian Report -Escoffier ✓ b. Foundation Report—Dunbar/Herman ✓ 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None) a. Easton Report—Escoffier ✓ Information 9. NEW BUSINESS a. Change of 2 Board Meeting Dates ✓ Approval 10. ADJOURNMENT Adjourn • r B(1RLINGAME i r 1 9 U R L I N G A M E P U B L I C LIBRARY Burlingame Public Library Board of Trustees Minutes February 20, 2001 I. Call to Order The meeting of February 20, 2001 was called to order by President Cecile Coar at 4:30 pm. II. Roll Call Trustees Present: Jeff Berger, Cecile Coar, Jane Dunbar, Andrew Gurthet' Mary Herman Staff Present: Alfred Escoffier, City Librarian Sidney Poland, Recorder III Warrants & Special Fund The Trustees unanimously agreed to approve the warrants as presented. M/S/C (Berger/Gurthet) IV. Minutes The Trustees unanimously agreed to approve the minutes of the January 16, 2001 meeting. M/S/C (Herman/Berger) V. Correspondence Correspondence mailed in the packets was reviewed. A. Duncan Trust Statement - Trustee Coar advised that the comment made on the December, 2000 statement regarding ".... adjustment to the investment income earned on your fund ..." does not pertain to the Duncan Trust. 4 8 0 P r i m r o s e R o a d • B u r l i n g a m e • C A 9 4 0 1 0 4 0 8 3 Phone ( 650 ) 342 - 1038 • Fax ( 650 ) 342 - 1 948 • www . pls . lib . ca . us / pls / pls . html B. Library Accounts Reports 1. Marshall Trust - The City of Burlingame posts interest on the Marshall Trust once a year which is why the �-- statement provided to the Trustees shows the same balance from July through December of 2000. The trust is earning approximately 6% annually. 2. Revolving Account- Funds are placed in this account until various invoices need to be paid. 3. Trustees Account - Xerox Fund - The Xerox receipts have not been as high as in the past. Cost for copies is $ .15 which the Trustees felt should not be raised. Copies printed off the Internet are $ .15 after 10 pages; payment is based on the honor system. The Trustees discussed possible ways to monitor patron printing costs and collections for the Internet by means of a computerized program. VI. From the Floor (Public Comments) None VII. Reports A. City Librarian's Report The City Librarian reviewed his report highlighting the following issues. 1. Easton Upgrade Project - The Branch task force has reviewed Kathy Page's findings. On March 2nd, Wayne Gehrke of Group 4, will meet with the Branch task force to begin the cost estimate process. 2. Donor Wall - Andrew Bradford of Napa is working on the mock up of the donor wall vine and will try to send it to us by the March 20th meeting. 3. Merger of Friends and Foundation - The Friends met this month to review their organizational status, discuss procedures of disbanding the Friends and implementation of operating as an entity of the Foundation. This merger is not likely to be completed until the early part of 2002. Library Board of Trustee Minutes 2 February 20, 2001 • 4. Energy Conversation - Staff has investigated possible ways to reduce energy consumption in the library. Energy needs were different when the building was designed 7 years ago. a. HVAC - Last year a complete readjustment of the control (VAV) boxes was implemented by ComAir and Automatic Controls which resulted in a more energy efficient system. b. Lighting: A portion of the lighting is computerized; the other portion is a combination integrated battery back up and emergency lighting system which remains on 24 hours and is wired to a breaker panel. Staff will investigate cost savings of making changes. S. Personnel - Mary Beth James-Thibodeaux joined the staff to fill the vacant 30 hours reference librarian position. Previously, Mary Beth was an on-call reference librarian. B. Foundation Report - No Report VIII. Unfinished Business - None IX. New Business - A. Staff Recognition Request - The Trustees agreed to provide funding from the Trustees Fund in the amount of$1,000 for the annual staff meeting programs. M/S/C (Herman/Dunbar) X. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 5:30pm. M/S/C (Herman,Guerthet) Respectfully Submitted Alfred H. Escoffier City Librarian Library Board of Trustee Minutes 3 February 20, 2001 i' ,— K�I—I,,,, LA ;;, �4 Ir THE BURLINGAME HISTORICAL SOCIETY P.O. BOX 144 • BURLINGAME, CA 94011 February 21, 2001 Alfred Escoffier, Librarian Burlingame Public Library 480 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Al, For 25 years, The Burlingame Historical Society has been actively researching local history primarily through the recollections of old timers and by reading microfilm of the Burlingame Advance newspapers in the Library. So, it is with much pleasure and gratitude to the Burlingame Library that we accept the microfilm _ reader/printer. We thank you for this generous gift, and also thank Pat Harding, Sue Reiterman and others who facilitated the move of the machine to our archives. Also, thanks to the Burlingame Library, we already have a small collection of films of the Advance and The Independent that will help our researchers get started right away. Again, we are delighted to receive this great researching tool and are looking forward to continuing our long, helpful and close relationship with the Burlingame Library. Sincerely, Mary Faber, Secretary BURLINGAME PUBLIC LIBRARY STATISTICS FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER 2000 REGISTERED BORROWERS Previous month's total #Added Total Registered Burlingame Adults 12,185 74 12,259 Burlingame Children 3,198 17 3,215 Hillsborough Adults 1,981 12 1,993 Hillsborough Children 1,014 5 1,019 Non-San Mateo Co. Borrowers 776 8 784 Totals 19,154 116 19,270 CIRCULATION ACTIVITY MAIN BRANCH Adult Print Materials 15,785 693 Children's Print Materials 6,934 896 Audio/visual Materials 5,532 103 CIRCULATION TOTALS This month total Main 29,886 This month previous year 27,555 8.5%1 This month total Branch 1,923 This month previous year 1,976 -2.76%D This month Grand Total 31,809 This month previous year 29,531 8%1 REFERENCE ACTIVITY INTER-LIBRARY LOANS Questions Directions Lent 2,406 Reference 2,151 241 Borrowed 1,443 Children's 872 962 TOTAL 3,849 Lower Level 906 1,869 Branch 109 61 TOTAL 4,038 3,133 Collections Main Titles Added Main Volumes Added Branch Volumes Added Adult Non Fiction 234 285 8 Children's Non Fiction 99 116 12 YA Non Fiction 0 0 Adult Fiction 102 143 11 Children's Fiction 100 133 21 YA Fiction 7 11 4 Cassettes 55 265 19 Compact Discs 16 27 0 Videos 32 80 0 Children's Audio 0 19 0 Children's Video 0 3 0 Totals 645 1,082 75 BURLINGAME PUBLIC LIBRARY STATISTICS FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER, 2000 PAGE 2 OTHER MATERIAL Volumes added Total Adult un-cataloged books 108 2,926 Children's un-cataloged 75 1,340 books Foreign Language un- 0 314 cataloged Deposited with the City Treasurer Main $6,756.34 Branch 373.50 Total $7,129.84 Other Deposits Rental $ 98.00 PLS Video $ 34.00 Photocopies* $838.70 *This figure is also included in the "total main deposit". ESTIMATED USER TRAFFIC' 22,960 DAILY AVERAGE 820 *Community Room Adult TOTAL MEETINGS HELD 3 FATTENDANCE 59 CHILDREN'S/YOUNG ADULT ATTENDANCE Pre-school programs 14 561 School A e 1 36 Book rou ies 1 7 Total 16 604 Internet Use One Hour Express Children's Total 1,107 2,153 87 3,347 Tucrsday,March 8,2001 Daily Appettate Report 2383 CIVIL RIGHTS Internet at their own risk:... [U ... [q] Individuals must accept responsibility for determining what is appropriate. The library, ...-upholds and affirms the right of each individual:m .have access.:to constitutionally protected Ci zs not sub est to suit or damage's or injunctton materials and also affirms,the right and responsibility of ,. f for o�j`tring unrestricted access to the Intern parts,to.determine and.monitor their children's.use of- library materials and resources. Parents and guardians are: through computers atpublu Izbrar�c� r enconraged;to work closely wrth.their children Parents are Y • �Y: �� �,,� ptpected L� monitor and supervise childna's.use of the N. Internet selectin material that is consistent with g Cite as 2001 DJDAR 2383 , ` h �,� 4O°�`Fod-family_values. ;TbaLivermore Public-Library ' ��,k°t does not provide this monitorings or supervision." The ,YS ; � F �' . policy liiw�xamples.of-unacceptable use."-of computers, .. �- including use"for other than educational,informational and PlaintiffT��s and ��� y`� �� reical creatioonal purposes;' ar..for "unauthorized, illegal or CTfY`OF UVERMORE, y� ' Respondent:is wasting.puher' state, law v. blic-funds on�comput�ers(which Defendant and Respondent. K mur access to obscenity and matter harmful to.minors;it No.A086344 ' R `} f ,`t � Js a public nuisance for respondent to knowingly allow its. ti k'.k s 14 'OMP11t= to be used to-access.'obscenity. and matter (Alameda County r x ; � y harmful to mmats; and the library, is unsafe for minors � ' Super.Ct No:Y-01524 fixans..... pu$ s provide them with access to harmful sus t � t Cahfonua Courtof A y� 4 mintier 1983 claim alleges that: Minors are 3~uxt Appellate Distn t '°tor$ to the library complete:public school i . a Division Four i �� j,a �ti iters-° a ges,minors to use its � ��.t �.� as si � en ; l�h 6.200�� �„ 1pa policy of allowing minors to a obscenit and:pornography on the t� nk 4' �tCWt y Porn SZdP Y m�.Y 14 4 u t to d�tNx A In this case we hold"that a city is not nub to stat ot= boncpdters ptposed to obscenity and pornography damages a an injunction far oflenng anrestncbeata= s to saffea and psychological damage and damage to x`aRftb 1 the In through computers at aj1112 ner respondent knows its actions and pp��tryy1� a ptcu8 uric plaarig`minors at grave risk Of harm and S i � RECO `t t.�i.? ' ; � �g tespQni3ent tries to keep parents ignorant of that risk. This case was filed against City ,of Altappegant's causes of actionseek'injunctive relief: Livermore by appellant Kathleen R.indivilaims seek to enjoin respondent: 'from acquiring capacities as a taxpayer and as guardian ad iztem fon computers which or a aint ining allow people to access Brandon P� her minor son. The amended complaint obscenity or minors to access hanmfuk sertual matter,from includes causes of action for waste of publicfunds. marntaining any premises where miioit;�ave that ability, nuisance..Prem ses liability,and denial of substantcve dueR an4r1omexpending.-public funds on-such computers. The process (42 Us.C. .'>] '1983 (hereafter 'I983): se�xion 1983,claim ienjoin respondent from"knowingly Respondent's demurrer was:sustained without:leave:to and intenhonauy allowing its computers to display obscene amend on the ground that the complaint did not state facts and<'pocnogaphic images where [Brandon] and other sufficient to eonstitute.a cause of action,and the case`was children can view:them."' The nuisance and.premises ` dismissed. liability claims also regaesr declarations that respondent is Respondent's library has computers halted to the liable for all:future damages appellant's children suffer ., Internet which patrons of any age are fire to use. Twelve- from "sexual and other-material harmful to minors" they tors ' : year-old Brandon went to the computers without appellant's access at library computers connected to the Internet. knowledge and downloaded sexually explicit photos from the Internet onto a floppy disk that he brought to the library. II. DISCUSSION � Without any adult's knowledge or permission Brandon A public library,is in a "damned if you do, damned if printed the photos at relagve's computer. He engaged in you don't"actuation in deciding whether to restrict access to rats T' this activity an about'10 occasions.'A s tY 'Appellant alleges that the Internet computers to prevent harm to minors-, tes the photos Brandon obtained are harmful to minors and that A case in Virginia shows that the library can be sued if it 1 some of them are obscene: One of the photos is reproduced limits:'Internet access'(Mainstream Loudoun v. Bel of towla tons in cola on the first page of the complaint and others art 7Yustees ie Lbudoun (E.D.Va. 1998) 24 F.Supp.2d 552 attached as exhibits. In one of the exhibits a middle school (Loudowrt In [use :of filtering software violated Fast schedule is superimposed over the image of a scantily clad Amendment]);this case shows that the library can be sued woman Brandon showed the photos to.otherminors. "` if it.does not:. This case,',unl___ the Virginia one, is A copy of the Internet access polity adopted ,by untenable_ .The state laws claims in this case are preempted 'a respondent's library board of trustees is attached to the by,Weral law, and there is'110 entitlement to relief under complaint. This policy states in part: `"Tbe Board of, section 1983. 'A ''rustees 'supports the idea that all ,nxnbeisof,_the: community,have free and equal'aeoess to the entire range of A* State Law Causes of Action- s library nesourcxs,regardless of oonten4 approach,format or The state causes.of action. are precluded by title 47 . amount of detail. These rights extend to all users of the United States Code section 230 0 230).,Section 230(cxl) public library including minors. .'.: [q] (v The states that: "No provider or user of an interactive computer Internet and its available resources may contain materials of service shall be treated as the'publisher or speaker of any "a controversial nature. The Livermore Public abrary does not monitor and has`no control over the information t "m coomast to d broad clamu for injunctive reiiet: app accessed. through the Internet and cannot be held sayses in ba briefs Qat she would be satisfied if respondent responsible for its content. ... Library patrons use,the. T t minors have'verified wry puenuc part issoo"to use 2384 Daily Appellate Report Thursday,March 8,2001 TTr information provided by another information content governmental entitiesof immunity under section 230(cXl) Proprovider." 'Ibis provision prohibits "hold[ingl interactive Section 230(cXl)immunity serves rather than undermines ` ass computer services liable for their failure to edit,withhold or the purpose of minimizing state regulation of Internet -s acs restrict access to offensive material disseminated through speech insofar as it precludes claims based on public Par their medium." (Blumenthal v.Drudge(D.D.C. 1998)992 entities' failure to undertake that regulation. Thus, the toe F.Supp.44,49.) This prohibition was enacted"to promote rationale for the denial of immunity in Loudoun I has m '.' i>m the continued development of the Internet and other application in this case.' Moreover,the court noted that its an interactive computer services and other interactive media," holding in Loudoun I would have been the same"[elven if c9V and "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market § 230 were construed to apply to public libraries." SM that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive (Loudoun 1, supra, 2 FSupp.2d at p. 790.) Thus. any :* fret computer services, unfettered by Federal or State suggestion in Loudoun I that section 230 could never be ~ infi regulation." (§230(bXl), (2); see Blumenthal v. Drudge, applied to public libraries would have been dicta. In any rest supra, 992 FSupp. 'at_p. 49.)' Thus, "(b)y its plain event.there can be no doubt that the Loudoun court thought >nu language, § 230[(cXl)l creates a federal immunity to any that public libraries could claim immunity under section dist cause of action that would make service providers liable for 230(cXl)because the court ventured in Loudoun li that this the information originating with a third-party user of the immunity should alleviate any concern the library might the service." (Zeran v. America Online, Inc. (4th Cir. 1997) have had with potential criminal liability.. (Loudoun Il, Lid obs 129 F.3d 327,330;see also Ben Firm Weinstein, h Co. v: supra,24 FSupp.2d at p.565,fie. 15.) We therefore reject America Online Inc. (10th Cir. 2000) 206 Fad 980,984 appellant's to 985.) - � 1 argument based entirely on Loudoun l that incl defendant has no immunity because it is a governmental Respondent is entitled 'to that immunity here. An entity. ; "interactive computer service"is"any information,service, Appellant contends that section 230 cannot beam system,or access software provider that provides or flu enables interpreted to confer immunity in this case because her feta computer access by multiple users to a computer server, claims are consistent with the aims of Congress in passing Cal including specifically 'a service or system that provides that law.,Appellant notes that title 47 United States Code alk access to the Internet and such systems operated or services section 223(§223)was enacted along with section 230 as offered by libraries or educational institutions." `(§ part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, and ` wh 230(fX2), italics added.). Respondent provides an submits that certain of section 223's provisions addressed obs "interactive computer service" in this case because its the same concerns as her lawsuit. `Appellant refers to req computers enable multiple users to access the section 223(dX1XB),which made it a crime to"use[] any bar Internet. Respondent is not an "information content interactive computer service to display in a manner provider" in this-case because it is not "responsible, in available to a person under.18 years of age, ['§Jcor soy not whole or in part,for the creation or development"of any of comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other � the harmful matter accessible through its computers: (§ communication that, in context, depicts or describes, in . 230(0(3)•) terms patently offensive as measured by contemporaryrea Appellant contends that section 230(cXl) immunity community standards, sexual or excretory.activities 'or. ' in t _ does not extend to governmental entities. Nothing in the organs, regardless of whether the user of such service pd text or stated purposes of that provision supports this placed the call or initiated the communication,"and section argument. The argument rests on Mainstream Loudoun v. 223(dX2), which made it a crime to "knowingly permit[] pre( Se Board of Trustees of Loudoun(E.D.Va.1998)2 F.Supp.2d any telecommunications facility under(one's]control to be _ hat 783 (Loudoun 1). In that case,a public library's board of used for[such]activity..'.with the intent that it be used for sea trustees was alleged to have violated the Fust Amendment such activity." , _ • , ,, _ lob rights of adult patrons by installing filtering software on Appellant acknowledges that these criminal laws were, the library computers to block Internet sites-which contained struck down on Fust Amendment grounds in Reno.'v da matter harmful to minors. The board claimed immunity American Civil Liberties `Union.(1997) 521. U.S. 844. lit under section 230(cX2), a different immunity than the one However, she argues that these laws show what Congress ins asserted here:-Unlike the immunity here. the immunity, meant when it"stipulated that"[n]othing id[section 2301. 54 claimed in Loudoun I conflicted with section 230's stated shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any tat purposes. Also,appellant's reading of Loudoun I is.belied State law that is consistent-with- this. section." G oth by the court's subsequent opinion in Loudoun U. For all of 230(ex3).) Appellant reasons that. because section these reasons appellant's reliance on Loudoun I is 230(eXl) likewise directs that "Nothing in this section car misplaced. shall be construed to impair the enfi6oni t of section 223 fac The immunity provision at issue in Loudoun I reads as or any other Federal criminal statute,"and because her follows: "No provider or`user of an interactive computer lawsuit like section 223 seeks "to prevent the distribution the service-shall be held liable on account of- [q], (A) any and display of obscene pornography to minas,"section 230 action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or cannot properly be interpreted to preclude her state law act availability of material that the provider or user considers to claims. be obscene, lewd; lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, , The problem with this line of argument is that this is not — harassing.or.otherwise objectionable,"whether or net"such a criminal case. At most,the statutes appellant cites raise ' material is constitutionally protected." (§230(cX2).) This the issue of whether section 230 prevents enforcementof m1 immunity has nothing to do with this case, where the state laws pertaining to criminal eonduM an issue tot, claims are that respondent unlawfully ailed to restrict cgs . 1� Y f � presented by the allegations.of the coatplaint.in this civil access to obscene and harmful matter. 'Loudoun I held that case. 'Appellant attempts to raisethis issue in her briefs ", coos this immunity did not extend to the'plaintiffs' First with 'charges .and hypotluiicals involving intentional pa r . Amendment claim because"§230 was enacted to minimize on state regulation of Internet speech ...; § 230 was not : lea enacted to insulate government regulation of Internet Entirely apart from the discussion m Lard°""1 it is as apparent re s fivm judicial review." (Loudoun 1, supra, 2 that a federal statute could ever grant immunity 6om a. federal speech 1 P constitutional claim tike the one in Loudoun,as opposed to state law the car F.Supp.2d at p.790.) claims like those here. (Ser Aguilar v.Avis Rant A Car Systant,Inc. us This sentence in Loudoun fs discussion of section (1999)21 CalAlh 121,150-151(coot.opn.of Werdegar,L.)("Congress hx 2WcX2)(A) immunity cannot be`stretched to deprive cannot, hY k;g4datkm. change the scope of one's Fust Amendment lab rights"].) ulf ly,Match 8,2COl Tlrilr'sday,Match 8.2001 Daly AppeIlate Report 2385 - r cion'230(cxl). provision of obscene pornograPhY to minors. Appellant atxxss it, merely because of-the ease with which such., al an undermines asserts that"it is not the providing of unrestricted Internet images can be obtained from the Internet: In Reno v. arlation of Internet access which is the Problem;it Is the provision of oosome American Civil L3erties Union,'supra,.521_U S. at page s based on public pornography to children. , Appellant likens the library's 853,the court recognized that [s]exually,explicit material .. ulation..''Thus, the conduct to"sedting]up a display'of obscene images and on the Internet includes text,pictures,and chat and`extends L Loudoun I has,m inviting minors to view them. Appellant asks us to imagine from the modestly titillating to the hardest-core.' .. [It] - court noted that its an adult enticing minas.to view obscene images he had may be accessed either deliberately or_unintentionally the same"[elven if called,upon a library computer screen,and suggests that to during the course of an imprecise search." However, the Public libraries.« t the library immunity here would insulate�s adult: court.°found that "users seldom encounter, such content ' 790•)' Thus, an "criminal, or LtabiIity 'for, intentional accidentally. Almost'all,sexually`exp licit images are '30 could never be n emahonal.distress Appellant describes this preceded by warnings.as to content For that`reason, the been dicta. In 'rpateatl- absurd and `hardly what Congress odds are slim that a user would enter.a sexually explicit sdoun court thon�ght. ie man's:wrong rusts' not in :creating- or site by aocideat''.(Id at P.854.) Here;it is not alleged that miry ander section n8 ,images but is choosing to publicly exhibit Brandon stumbled across anything harmful by accident Loudoun ll that thrix than`eo Impressionable yotmgsters. It is no dlffermt with Nevertheless,appellant has likened library computers to , . t the library might the hbrary whkh knowingly allows ,minors'to access machine where you push a red button, [and] obscene (Loudoun yw _an Its premises and, when.asked,,would'even pornography appears,on the screen.". Appellant's briefs We therelkim them doing so with o66-on-one help. ;According' represent that an impressionable child:need only type.the , to Loudoun Ithat is briefs,.the library;Is ``giy[ing].operating ward`girl'[into a library computer]and click thrice to view how to ca11 up harmful images' obscene perversions of the darkest order"_ Appellant has is a governmentsl descnbed in te briefs isnot alleged cit the advised that she has experts who can demonstrate".it's_so 0 ccannot beonlplalnt..Whey a' case has bees dismissed for easy to obtain obscene pornography from library terminals +i ase bemuse .' �s�canse of action,all proper y pled material in the City of I.ivermon that's basically`the"same thing as ongress in passing as true, (Blank v ,Kirt►tart'(1985) 39 City librarians simply providing pornography.", .Thus. Jetted States Code ll,31$)-We must thus assume,as the complaint appellant argues that respondent has a"policy of essentially _ lith section 230 as x t PuirrIases and maintains computers giving obscene pornography to any willing child who Act of 1996, and s can and_have bees used patrons, by,library asks. (Italics added.) ]visions addressed .: *eminors,to access and display material which is Contrary to this line of argument,.there is, a crucial ppelLhnt refers and harmful to minors.'`.We cannot assume that distinction between providing minors,with harmful matter , `'t librarians exhibit'obscenity-or other matter on the one hand,and maintaining,computers where minors time to`lice[]any ,minors,or that they help minors use the librarymay obtain such matter, however Basil , on. the other. Ay age, ,r to recess those materials,because that conduct Sax on 230 draws `this distinction° by immunizing Y In a manner mY erther acpnessiy or by reasonable implication in interactive computer service providers from liabrlty;;for. . Image,err other r �,. scribes, 9n ; - Plant. (See ibid [complain must be given,."a mere'failure to "restrict'access -to offensive material otem ? inO°+reading it as a whole and Its parts disseminated through their medium":' (Blumenthal'v. �' . ppjt t"].): Drudge. suprm 992,F.Supp.'at p 49.) Congress was activities err.: �* implication waild be'contrary to the lbraiy indeed concerned with"children's access to'objectionable of such service b�"and sectwn ;i Cached to the complaint,which among other things., or inappropriate online material" when it enacted,section Iawingly �� "� bits the ase of computer resources for illegal purposes. 230. ( 230(bX4).)` To combat that problem and`remove r (See Pea,Code,§313:1,subd.(a)[prohibiting exhibition of disincentives"far, the; development and utilization of le s]control to 6e brary's. bkrcking„ And filtering .technologies" (J' 230(bx4)), that it be used .r m minors].) Coosrstent with the li mission of encouraging children to develop a li5elong Congress con section 230(cp):immunity for actions in.the t in learning,the library presumably seeks to impart. to restrict access to objectionable"material :However,as the aminal laws wiere, rods in Rain v tile-"[e]lecGtonre Inforniatiaa research skills" the Polity Fourth Circuit _9", context of.a,tort claim l 521. U.S. g44. , drums "increasingly important so'students ,and otbas.; against a coarmeriaal interactive bomputer service, cv what Congress :`brarians cannoit be prosecuted for 'providing- such "Cmgress made a'policy_choice , novio- deter harmful ;' in on(Pen.Code,0 3133;Moore V. Younger(1976) online.speec6'through the separate route of imposing tort im e[nforcin'230] Cal APP3d�1122), and we cannot presume that such liability r , pr+es 'ty as companies that serve as intern►ediaries for other I `section.-g( on would include lessons on finding obscenity,or parties'.potentially injurious messages",(Zeran v.America , because section -harmful matter on the Internet. Such lessors would Online, Inc, supra,',-129 Fad at pp:; 330-331.) "Isle . in this',section.' fortber the library's stated mission,and would not be purpose of this statutory immunity is not difficult to liscern. : nt of section 223 sistent with its polity that computers are to be used only Congress recognized the threat that tort-based lawsuits pose and because her "tduc4tional,informational and recreational purposes:' to freedom of speech in the new and burgeoning Internet At vanaus points in her arguments.appellant suggests medium. The imposition of tort liability_on service : t the distribution that Iespondeat can be bald liable for �,»section� h providing obscene providers for the communications of others.represented,for le her state law :P Br'aPhy to minors,even if librarians themselves do not Congress,:simply another form of intrusive government , acxlially exhibit such matter to minors or teach them how to regulation of speech.._Section 230 was enacted,in part, to maintain the robust nature of Internet communication and, is that this is not y accordingly,to keep government interference is the medium ellant cites raise This:argument h cones insofar as it implicitly concedes that " enforreahent of >;respondent would not be liable as a pubiishez or distributor of harmful to a minimum (Id at P. 330.) Tbtxefoee, we conclude x, an issuenot maner ply M ring an' compacr service.-Tic u^m that the application of section 230(cxI) immunity to bar Lint in this civil ease holds that section 230(cXl)in—mity extends a distributor,as well appellant's state law causes of action is fully consistent ue in'her briefs as pubksbw. �ihe for_defamation,-Wed thus that ars interactive with the purpose as well as the letter of section 230. Ing intentional computer service mot be ferric liable nerdy because it has notice of a polmda ly defamatory statements on its service. (7eran Y. America Online. Inc., supra; 129 Fad at pp. 331-334.) The Zeran court : among other, things that "liability upon coerce (would] ` This concern is further Te lected in the Children's Internet Protection it is not apparent reasoned tY a federal reiofonee[j service providers',inn"dives to restrict specch.7 and timmiry Act(Pub...No.106-554,tit.XVII.1 1701 a seq..(Dec.21.2000)114 Car state law eonoravew section 230's aim of promoting the continued development of Stat._.which conditions libraries'receipt of certain federal funds and -,'the Interact. (Id at p.333.) This name consideration precludes treating assistance an the uw.of filtering technology to prevent minors from�yste s,Ingrespondent as a distnbotor of obscenity or other harmful Matta merely viewing obscene or other harmful material on computes linked to the t (�� because it has notice that such matter may be transmitted through its hua at. This recently enacted ® law has no bearing on the munity at Fast �a>dinat ., issue m shit case - h'bruy co'°putas' 8 2386 Daily Appellate Report Thursday,Manch 8,2001 Thu Appellant contends that any immunity in this case "to protect the people from the State,not to ensure that the would extend only to tort claims,and thus would not cover State.protect[s] them from each other." (DeShaney v. 879 her taxpayer cause of action. This argument is based on Winnebago Cry. Soc. Servs. Dept.(1989) 489 U.S. 189, Ural language in the Zeran and Blumenthal cases refecting to 196.) 'Ilius, as a general rule "[t]he State's failure to F3d section 230(cXl)immunity from"tort liability." (Zeran v prevent harm inflicted by a private actor does not give rise ply America Online, Inc., supra, 129 F.3d at p. 332; see also to a cause of action under section 1983." (Garcia v mid' Blumenthal v. Drudge, supra, 992 F.Supp. at p. 49 Superior Court (1990) 50 Ca13d 728, 739.) 1 Two ["Whether wisely or not, [Congress]made the legislative exceptions to this general rule have been recognized: the danf judgment to effectively immunize providers of interactive "special relationship"or"`functional custody'"exception; whit computer services from civil liability in tort with respect to and the "`danger creation'"-or ­snake-pit'"'exception. anal material disseminated by them but created by others," (Liebson v New Mexico ,Corrections Dept.' (10th Cir. Cou italics added].) Appellant also suggests that this immunity 1996) 73 F3d 274, 276;L.W. v'Grubbs (9th Cir. 1992) was would not apply to her claims for declaratory and injunctive 974 F.2d 119, 121; Blum, DeShaney: Cust honey otfy, Creation pent relief. She notes that in Loudoun I the court concluded, of Danger, and Culpability(1994)27,Loyola L.A. LRev. mau after discussing 7eran,that"[elven if§230 were construed 435, 436-437 (hereafter .Blum).) Neither of 'those that to apply to public libraries, defendants cite no authority to exceptions applies here. brill; suggest that the `tart-based' immunity to `civil liability' ,The special relationship or functional custody.exception was described by§ 230 would bar the instant action,which is applies"when the State takes a person into its custody and as t for declaratory and injunctive relief." (Loudoun I,supra,2 holds him there against his will";in that situation;the state gove F.Supp.2d at p.790.) has "a corresponding dutyto assume some responsibility DeS We reject these arguments and hold that respondent is far[the person's] safety.' (DeShaney v Winnebago Cty. of immune from all of appellant's state Iaw claims. Sot.., Servs. Dept., supra, 489 U.S: at pp.;'199-200.) Nix Loudoun I is distinguishable, again, because I it involved "DeShaney left undefined the precise measureof state the immunity,under section'230(eX2), not section 230(cXl). restraint that engenders an individual's right to claim's [plai Whereas section 230(cX2) prohibits interactive computer corresponding affirmative duty." (Graham v Independent beca service providers from being "held liable,' for specified 'School'DiA No 1-89.;(10th Cir.,1994)22 F3d 991;994:) 509 conduct, and that language may arguably refer only to However, DeShaney seta "high standard",fix''liability mins damage, claims.' m such. liatiting language appears in when it indicated that the "deprivation'of liberty"'" harn section 230(cXl).-; Zerart and Blumenthal, are"also which triggers the.,protecd s.,of due "`' Supe distinguishableprocess ,.,. rs the on rbcs point because, unlike appellant's State's'affirmative`act of restraining the individual's elan case, they involved only tort claims. Since there was no freedom to act on his own behalf.'" (Garcia v..Superior's occasion to address nontort claims in those cases, their Court,supra, 50 Cal3d at 0. 762,(dis:opn.'of Mosk,,iJ reasoning does not: preclude section 230(cXi) immunity ;see also id at p.;740.)' Given this stringent standard,arost"'" does from extending to such claims. (Ginns v.Savage(1964)61 courts have lin 'declined-to find that:students ane m `'the; ° '" fibra Cal.2d 520, 524" fa. 2 [opinions are not authority, for functional custody of schools despite. the compulsory � apix propositions they do not consider].) attendance laws.' (Blum, supra;27 Loyola L:A. l.Rev. at prov Section 230 provides broadly that "[n]o cause of action 445;e. .,Graham v.Inde �t P 8 pendent School Dist No I-89, may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any supra,.22 F3d at P.--994.)' Similarly".here, even 'if.,as Jibe State or local law that i's inconsistent with this section."' (§ appellant.alleges'minors are expected to go to respondeht's restr 230(eX3), italics`added) Thus,'even if for purposes of libraryto complete public school asci suP' section 230 -liability- es,iib ]?; P '"meets, the library means only an award of damages does trot exercise "`pervasive control'"over minors (see imp] (Loudoun 1,supra.2 F.Supp.2d alp.790),the statute by its Blum, supra,,27.Loyola LA. L Rev.'`at pp.`"449=450 im terms also precludes,other causes of action for other forms [arguing for an.expansive interpretation of DeShaney]); COT of,relief. This interpretation is confirmed by the Tenth much less restrain their 1ltedom to action their own sur( Circuit's decision in Ben Ezra, Weinstein, & Co. v. b allowin them to frecl use the lir flea America Online Inc., mora, 206 F3d at pages 983-984, Y 8 Y -brdry computers irons mo P g No`could the library's opea.Internet access polity:be which upheld the dismissal under section 230 of state law considered a state�eated:danger for purposes of.the"snake com claims for injunctive ielief as well as damages.:Taxpayer` pit" erioeption,to the "rule of nonliability, for failtire'to bete actions and claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are provide protective.services. '(Bowers v.Devito (7th,Cir. Chu( no less causes of action than tort claims for damages, and 1982)686 F.2d 616,618[when"the state puts a,man in a Cou thus fall squarely within the section 230(e)(3)`prohibition: 'position'of danger from private pemm'and then'fails.to [sub (F.g. Barguis v Merchant. Collection Assn..(1972) 7 protect him,...it is as much an active tartfeasar as if it had its L Cal-3 94, 113 [neferring_to cause of action for injunctive thrown him into a snake pit"]) For.,the danger creation Glut relief]; Lawrence Barker, Inc.v Briggs(1952) 39 Ca1.2d acception to apply,it is not enough that the plaintiffs harm fund 654.663[referring to cause of action for declaratory relief]; might have been foreseeable. (DeShaney v. Winneba o coni Fiske v. Gillespie (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d'' 1243, 1246 Cty.Soc.Servs Dept,supra,489 U.S. 201 state as brad [referring to taxpayer cause of action].) Appellant's .not liable for returning child-to custodyf`abusive father ebsc taxpayer and equitable theories to prevent respondent firm even if it was aware of the danger].) hus, rm- pondeat's rnfli providing open access to'the Internet on its library alleged awareness that minors are being exposed at library. ' .r ° computers contravene to 230's stated purpose of computers. to obscenity- and harmful matter.from the Brat .: promoting unfettusd development of the Internet no less Internet is insufficient to craze any liability. It must further '" 724- 1 than her damage claims. Tberef)m all of appellant's state appear that the state, has "`af5rmatively-plac[ed] -an ti ';. the law claims are preeniptecl under section 230individual in a position of danger, effectively, stripping a person of her ability to defend herself; or cutting off _ B. Section 1983 Cause of Action potential.sources of private aid.'" -(Johnson v Dallas � ` c e Appellant's attempt to state a case.for violation of her Independent School Dist (5th Cir. 1994) 38 F3d'-198, An,,, son's right to substantive due process-also fails. The 201.) For example,in Wood v Ostrander(9th Cir. 1989) government has an; interest in 'protecting minors fromram harmful materials on the Internet,(Reno v.American Civil ` Ixat Liberties Union,supra,521 U.S.at p. 875),but it does not s. Theae is a split of authority as to whether govermneat polxaesioward w ' conic have a constitutional duty to do so. Due process is afforded the gawarpuUlic such as rhe open interna access raspootleot•s a.. sure Wxwy.as opposod to State attim toward inm at >' Wei specific indrvrdual:c cm ever t titin rm h v4 2001r, 001 {' Thursday,March 8,2001 Dafy AppOate Report 2387 " M S policy arguments ppm 879 F2d 583,the classic dam er creation case.(Sutton v. These are insupportable becik. mt 1s rite the.. afty Y Utah State School for Deaf and Blind(10th Cir.1999)173of respondent's library to,,prnvlde minors wzth ' S; 189. F3d 1226, 1237, fn. 12), a state trooper impounded the obscene pornography. Provision of computer-transmitted nlure,to ; � plaintiff s car and abandoned her in a high crime area in ti1e obscenity to minas would contravenethe library policY'.s pv�nae `^ f mtiddle of the night directives that computers''be used' for .'educahoaal,, arcia v.. A library does not "affirmatively plac[e]" minors in 'informational, recreational, but not illegal, purposes r lion danger by allowing them unsupervised use of computers policy warns that "controversial" material is avatlable oa which are linked to the Internet The situation here is the Internet. that patrons who.use the Internet do so," analogous to the one considered in Carlton v..Cleburne their own risk," and that the library,.does not,supervise. i3. .. County.Ark (8th Cir. 1996)93 F3d 505,where a county minas'use of the Internet This acknowledgement that�t1e was sued for vrdating the substantive due process rights of `library does not undertake to protect mwors from trarmful people:who were killed and injured :when .a bridge matter on the Lltt:aex does notimply teat the library intends L"toR ;•: maintained by the county collapsed The plaintiffs:argued for minas to be exposed to obscenity.._ The library's Ing, b'. that the county had placed them in danger by promoting the affirmation of"the right o mlatenaleach s"is uuot as endorsemenhave i6�iii t t #t,. bridge as a tourist attraction when it lmcw that the budge coastitutiooally protected 's r+ ��#t was dderio ating. The court held that"offering;a'location of minors' access to obstxmty. (See Ginsberg v New York n° as a `tourist attraction is not the type of ',8ffirmative (1968) 390 U.S. 629, 636-637 [minors have mdy government action that creates a duty,to pro�tpctmunder 'constitutional right]. .�try3" the state sti DeShaney. [Plairniffs]allege no affirmative on a part Since it is not the cy'of�resJ ' ' t 'li to 1b>lity ,of government officials directly,plaang them m the bridge. provide obscene pornography to minors,we-- not called Norid the Connty['sJ actions `create the 'w'causing upon to decide whether minors have a filrldaaieatal right to `v° ire to such material. There is ao state - ) t>x budge to collapse To the contrary, g the freedom from expos ;of state •] allegations as true, the bndge,t lh policy mfringtng on any such interest is this instance;there kms. because of internal corrosion caused by, r p' his only a failure to render protection'j' private'serene illci i" is not actionable } ):The library's Internet policy likewrsrr. nat+oamrpgl ;harm which,'under well settled prm P a% ant's briefs 11.9941 imiaocs to use the library s computers;a create any of'the under section 1983: Fidally, if as appellant's i"� r: harmful matter aaxssMe through such use (CL Garcia v. maintain there are librarians m respondent's employment Ai " the who are vidin obscene pornography to aunacs, Srtperior Court.supra,50 CaL3d at p 738 [rejecting Pro g. m ;tbtt : foci respondent not liable under section 1983 for their that section 1983 simplyderaltxea11 �k ` t unauthorized actions. (Monell v. New York'City'Dept. of duan r '' claims against state actors"].) 9 ��;i s Social Services (1978) 436 U.S. 658. 690-691, 694 [no "'Appellaot attempts to avoid the r t11af due pieces 83 unlawful alk,I x s kt does not guarantee protective services-by distorting, the respondeat superior liability under section 19 Y' noted, action must execute municipalpolicy]..see, a g.,''1. pnlicy 0. v practices. As previous Y� , henry R appellant's briefs assert that the libraryhas.a poLry'of 'Alton Community Unit School Dist. (7th Cir: 1990)909 'providing obscene pornography to minors. Appellant 'F2d 267,272) � contends that the policy,as so concaved, violates,Honors' ° I-gg• -71.` �F "liberty interest,in pasoaal seauity and frredo��from III. DISPOSITION � 1f as-: k. �' ::restraint aod`i�ietian of pain" (Wood V. Os r, The judgment of dismissal is affirmed with costs to In sham' y, Wrti ht res dent. I supra, 879'F.2d at p.•389. citing g 8 P� "" ' w ;1(1977) 430 U.S. 65L 674-675 [liberty interests.:are s t ( HANLON,I. X149.450 k� z,implicated when a school restrains a child and administers ; �� caa[ioral Punishment]•) Appellant submits that minas are • 4tV seriously injured by viewing obscene pornography,:.-that We contra: 4", ' 'freedom from infliction of such pain is afundamental REARDON.Acting P.J. Yee� r constitutional right which cannot be infringed without a SEPULVEDA,J. 'compelling state interes14 and that there is no such rafesest 1be"snake r 4`' , hen;•because "there is -no 'compelling' reason to give failure'to1 't ,children any access to the Internet at all." (See generally Counly.of Sacramento x Lewis(1998)523 U.S.833,846 Trial Court A man in a [substantive due process limits what government may do in Superior Court of Alameda County ser fails to Washington v. 1 its legislative as well as executive capacity]: as if it had ,. - �:GGrcksberg (1997) 521 US. 702.,721: Daws'.infringing Trial Judge: a OII =ftmdamenW rights must be narrowly tailored to serve a. Honorable George C.Hernandez.Jr. tiffs harm compelling state interest].) 1a the same vein, appellant's 1Vurnebago " , briefs assert that respondent's librarians;are giving minors Attorney for Appellant: [state was .cene P� Phy,and thus that this case concerns harm Michael Millen sive,'father ' �A by government employees, rather,than their mere sptxideat s b� �'lfailure to provide protection (See, e g, Stoneking v. Attorney for Respondent: J at library. > ;Bi6dford Area School Dist. Cad Cir. 1989)882 F.2d 720, Thomas R.Curry _from the , �� '725[distinguishing DeShaney where injury resulted at City Attorney mgt furtherDaniel G.Sodergren thehaads of a state employee].) lac[ed] an • Assistant City Attorney stripping a Gabrielle P.Whelan cutting off;` F r":• yM v. Cowuy of tog Ci Attorney aeaic habthty under a snake pit dwory. ( .0 n Deputy City Y ' v. Dallas °;Atiaetes (9th Cir.1998) 147 F3d 1054, 1061.fiL 4.) In Mark v. JF3d 198. = i3orargh of Hatboro(3d err. 1995)51 F3d 1137, 1153,the caul Attorney for Amtici Curiae in Support of Respondeat eG' a reasoned that a city,could zea be held liable under ilia danger creation i' caaVtiou far failing to adequately screen hue dcPattrmut aWficauts because dauges creation ages invohe "ducraa_ grossly teddm acts committed by the state a state actors using their peculiar positions as 'k Retired Presiding Justice of the Cant of Appeal,•First Appellate dtnrs�osvard Moe actors,leaving a di=m plaintiff valnaable.b foreseeable injury." :Ihstrict assigned by the Chief]ostia ptusuant b article VI section 6 d r reap0[Idea[f btt� evt3' O ill assume without deciding that the danger creationtheuy could the California Constitution i V*hero nawidmunding this authority. '1 - (BURIJNGAME 1 T B U R L I N G A M E P U B L I C LIBRARY TO: Library Board of Trustees FROM: Alfred Escoffier, City Libman RE: Library Board Meetings Attached is a copy of an in-house schedule for Board Meetings. I am proposing that we reschedule two Board meetings this year in July and November. We would move both meetings a week earlier. Please check your calendars and see if this will work for you. Many thanks! 4 8 0 P r i m r o s e R o a d • Burl i n g a m e • C A 9 4 0 1 0 4 0 8 3 Phone ( 650 ) 342 - 1038 • Fax ( 650 ) 342 - 1948 • www . pls . lib . ca . us / pls / pls . html I � 1 Monthly Library Board Reports Cycle Year2001 Library Trustee Meetings Third Tuesday of the Month, at 4:30pm Library Conference Room Meeting Date Division Reports Due Library Reports Due Mail Tuesday, January, 16 Friday, January, 5 Monday, January, 8 Wednesday, January,10 Tuesday, February, 20 Friday, February, 9 Monday, February, 12 Wednesday, February, 14 Tuesday, March, 20 Friday, March, 6 Monday, March, 12 Wednesday, March, 14 Tuesday, April, 17 Friday, April, 6 Monday, April, 9 Wednesday, April, 11 Tuesday, May, 15 Friday, May, 4 Monday, May, 7 Wednesday, May, 9 Tuesda , June, 19 Friday, June, 8 Monday, June, 11 Wednesday, June, 13 Tuesday, July, 10 Friday, June, 29 Monday, July, 3 Wednesday, July, 5 Tuesday, August, 21 Friday, August, 10 Monday, August, 13 Wednesday, August, 15 Tuesday, September, 18 Friday, September, 7 Monday, September, 10 Wednesday, September, 12 Tuesday, October, 16 Friday, October, 5 Tuesday, October, 9 Wednesday, October, 10 Tuesday, November, 13 Thursday, November, 1 Tuesday, November, 6 Wednesday, November, 7 Tuesday, December, 18 Friday, December, 7 Monday, December, 10 Wednesday, December, 12 *Meeting Rescheduled rBURLIi`IGAME 1 r B U R L I N G A M f P U B L I C LIBRARY City Librarian's Report March 20, 2001 Budget Preparation is Underway City budget preparation is underway, with a deadline of April 13th. Increases are anticipated in personnel, building maintenance and energy costs. Easton Upgrade Project Kathy Page and Group 4 Architecture are assisting us with development of costs for renovation of the Easton Branch. In discussing options, we realize there may be more work involved than originally planned. Both recommended that we seek community input in an effort to gather information from library users on what sorts of services they feel are essential at the Branch facility before we go ahead with renovation priorities. Children's Services For the Begin with Books program, during February we did a total of 33 programs including: 8 Preschool Story Times, 10 Toddler Story Times, 2 Saturday Story Times, 2 visits to Easton, 1 visit to the Main and 10 programs at schools. These programs were attended by a total of 1,278 people. Planning took place for future programs including: St. Patrick's Day program, Teen Poetry Workshop, the summer reading clubs. Programs and Exhibits The Friday Evening Book Club met on February 9 to discuss Jane Austen's Pride and Pre'u� dice. The six participants included discussion leader Pam `- Gehrke and library representative Sue Reiterman. 4 8 0 P r i m r o s e R o a d • B u r l i n g a m e • CA 9 4 0 1 0 4 0 8 3 Phone ( 650 ) 342 - 1038 • Fax ( 650 ) 342 - 1948 • www . p1s . lib . ca . us / pls / pls . html Volunteer Program The library benefited from the efforts of 24 volunteers in February for a total of 130.5 hours of service. Beside the Friends book sale efforts, volunteers maintained indoor plants, processed new paperbacks and magazine donations, tutored patrons on Internet navigation, opened the terrace for public use, processed book withdrawals, maintained the Popular Materials collection, cleaned public computer terminals, straightened shelves, delivered books to the homebound and helped maintain supplies of income tax forms. Reference Services Several reference staff attended the OCLC training session for the reference tool First Search. In addition, Info People offered a workshop on Microsoft Word at the San Francisco Public Library. Sue Reiterman attended a workshop on Electric Library, another online database at Redwood City Library on February 1St Energy Update We have been in touch with the electrical engineering consultant who designed the lighting system for the library several years ago. We are considering hiring him to review our emergency lighting with an eye toward conservation and cost cutting. Alfred H. Escoffier City Librarian March 9, 2001