Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Library Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Library users and advocates urge board to stop steep Link Plus lost-book fees and private interlibrary loans
Summary
Speakers during public comment told the Board that San Francisco Public Library's use of a private Link Plus interlibrary-loan vendor and a posted $115 lost/damaged-book fee discourage low-income patrons and undermine the library's commitment to free, equal access.
Multiple members of the public urged the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday to investigate and halt the San Francisco Public Library's use of a private alternative to the state-supported interlibrary loan system and to stop enforcement of a posted $115 lost-or-damaged-book fee for items obtained through that service.
A public commenter described the change as an unpublicized switch to a private vendor implemented in February and said the new system imposes a mandatory $115 lost-book fee that is unrelated to actual replacement cost. "The public system is being replaced with a private system that has a mandatory $115 lost book fee," the speaker said, arguing the change shifts costs to patrons and reduces access.
Erin Shilander, student advocate for the Library Users Association, said the $115 fee creates a barrier for students and low-income patrons. "The $115 fine ... would deter me not from losing the book, but from using the library," Shilander told the board.
Peter Warfield, executive director of the Library Users Association, told supervisors the $115 fee can become a "one strike and you're out" policy because patrons who trigger the charge cannot borrow materials while the dispute is unresolved. Warfield said the city has no guarantee the owning libraries will reduce the fee for patrons and asked the board to "tell the library, stop charging harsh fees that the supervisors never authorized."
Why it matters: Library advocates said the change runs counter to the library's publicly supported mission of "free and equal access" and disproportionately affects students, seniors and low-income residents. Speakers asked the board to direct the library to stop accepting private-money alternatives that create mandatory, high replacement charges or to secure a statutory or contractual limit on patron liability.
Board record and next steps: These comments were part of the general public comment period. No formal board action on the Link Plus fee was recorded at the meeting. Speakers requested that supervisors press the library commission and library administration to provide explanations and remedies; the board may refer the matter to the appropriate committee or request a report from library staff in a future meeting.
