I don't understand why the seattle library system isn't just absorbed by KCLS. That way people living in Shoreline or North Seattle or other places near the city limits wouldn't have to deal with two different library cards.

I Heart Madonna's accountant.

I agree with Nancy Pearl that the library's funding source needs to be addressed. Sure, King County doesn't charge for ILL service but they also have a larger and more secure source of revenue than SPL does.

I heart Madonna's accountant

I've used the interlibrary loan system (almost exclusively for foreign language books) at SPL and was kind of amazed that it was free and the limits so high - you can submit up to 5 requests per week, and none that I've received have ever included charges.

I would hate to see it go up to $5 per book, but if some kind of change is really necessary to make their budget work, how about charging only after a certain number as is suggested at the bottom of the article? Say, 1 free request per week/month, or a certain number per year? That seems like a more acceptable compromise.

It won't make much difference, but they could be more careful about purchasing so many copies of bestsellers or recommendations from Oprah, Pitchfork etc. Limits on holds would help, hold only what you actually want. (Mea culpa, I've taken advantage of the full 100 at times.)

Some people will have to wait a month for The Secret II. Maybe they should (re)read one of the copies of The Secret clogging the shelves first? The CD racks of my nearest branch are over-stuffed with the same indie rock flash-in-the-pans every week, while the meager selection of Vietnamese and Mexican discs are always checked out.

#2,
The people most likely to check out a lot of books at once are 1) parents/teachers checking out books for their kids, 2) research students, or 3) people who cannot physically come to the library often due to illness, as mentioned above. Obviously the new restrictions are meaningless for most patrons, but they do in fact harm the specialized groups at which the policies are aimed.

@#10 The policies are not aimed at certain groups just because The Stranger says they are.

It should be noted that KCLS has a significantly larger budget than SPL. That being said, they also didn't hire Rem Kohlhaus to design the most user-unfriendly library. Sure is pretty though.

The changes to library circulation policy are rediculous, especially the Inter Library Loan charges. The Library used to collect a lot more diversely, but now they buy 200 copies of the "Australia" DVD (I checked) and think its okay to charge $5 for items they should have bought in the first place. I've used Inter Library Loan to get family history books, and a few 'popular' titles (not in the collection). Now I have to pay $5 each book. I think I'll just stop using this service if they charge.

Same kinds of unprofessional behavior, by management, are happening with the King County "Rural" Library System as with Seattle Public Library. Library Assistant's, high school education or less required for hiring, are being placed in Librarian positions. Does this mean that earning a Master's of Library Science to equip one for dealing with all manner of research questions as well planning all the daily professional programs that serve the public isn't necessary? The director and "appointed" Board of Trustees seem to think this. The tax payer’s think they are paying for professional librarians via special levies and property taxes. KCLS is being systematically torn apart and it’s happening because there is no oversight of this multi million dollar public agency on be half of the public, tax payers or staff. Why?

As an SPL staff member, I'm a little miffed that someone leaked what I treated as library-only dialogue, but I think it's GOOD for the public to be informed. I'm thankful that Susan Hildreth is thinking in the long term: this isn't about gouging patrons for services (that $36,000/year "revenue" isn't much in the face of huge budget cuts), but about cutting down the flow of items so the library can continue to function and serve our patrons with limited staffing. We may have layoffs if the budget doesn't go our way - we've got to make some sacrifices. While I'm sad that we have to implement these new policies, I'm even more sad at the thought of patrons reading this article and getting the impression that we're not behind Susan or that she's not doing a good job -- the poor lady just started! I think it's very admirable that she asked for staff input in the first place - she didn't need to do so.

While I'm on my soapbox, I'm not so stoked about the interpretation of Rules of Conduct as "designed to push out the homeless" -- the extension of the exclusions is for serious cases, and we do have them. The library needs to be a safe place, and we need enforceable rules like these to keep them that way.

And for anyone who would like to provide comments in a more productive forum than SLOG, you can attend the library board meeting this month. This page has the meeting dates/times and once the agenda is posted, will also have the room number:

http://www.spl.org/default.asp?pageID=ab…

I must be missing something here. These proposed changes "could result in an estimated $36,000 in annual revenue." What? All of this over a potential $36k in revenue for an institution w/ a 2007 annual operating budget of $45,841,452 (closer to $50mill in 2009-10)? Sure every penny counts and due diligence requires that every cost saving and revenue generating opportunity be explored, but the time spent on all of the "internal e-mails, budgets, meeting minutes, and agendas" probably totals at least $10k in salaries if not more. Add to that the decreased productivity due to the staff's "low" morale. Time to stop the madness and reroute all of this energy toward finding a less short-sighted solution.

If SPL stopped spending so much of its budget buying HUNDREDS of copies of the latest popular books and dvds, they could afford to buy a greater variety of books--and patrons wouldn't have to use interlibrary loan to get those items.

And what does limiting the number of books you can have on hold do other than reduce the ability to use the library effectively? That's the most ridiculous idea of them all. It sure discourages people from using the library... oh, wait... hmmm.. yeah... don't WANT folks to use the library!

I wouldn't mind at all if they just raised the late fees. That should be their first step.

The changes don't seem that terrible to me, with the possible exception of the $5 inter-library loan fee (something more like $2-3, or as someone above suggested, 1 free and then $5 would be more reasonable).

I think all of the library systems I've held a card for (which is not that many, admittedly) have had fines for children's books, though I know they are sometimes less than the fines for adult books.

And, I don't know, but a 100 book check-out limit seems crazy to me. In Chicago it was 30 (which did seem low). A 50 book limit seems like a reasonable middle ground.

@21 - Limiting holds would make users think before they add Australia to their hold lists just because they can and its first on a search of new DVDs. Then the library (presumably/hopefully) wouldn't have bought 200 copies(see @13). Even with a discount that's at least $4000-5000 so everyone can see Hugh Jackman shirtless the first month the DVD is available.

I'm kind of sick of "book" people who are anti-DVD. Yes, we're a friggin library--a friggin library that carries Australia and Quarantine and Big Momma's House III. Get over it. They're probably better uses of one's time than reading Jonathan Kellerman. It's shameful that SPL doesn't buy any academic material, but don't blame it on the DVDs. Film has been considered an art form for a couple of years now, and, like any art form, most of it is bad, but people deserve the chance to view it even if they can't pay 3.99 at Blockbuster.

I love my library; I'm there once a week if not more. The relationships with the staff are easily the best part: they are my co-horts, my uncredited research squad. I hate that they have to take furlough.

I'm going to chime in with a little voice of reason (I think) and hope that the library staffers or sloggers might pass along my ideas since I can't make that meeting.

First; regardless of the perception of money-priority, this seems really about time-wasting first, money saving second.

This being the case, as well as being that we're living in a $6/month netflix age, the SPL DVD collections seem like an easy, as well as reasonable, target for trimming fat, - IF they take a lot of staff time . 335 copies of any recent 'purely-entertainment movie'? Too much to me, unless they were all donated. How bout half that? or how bout 2 per branch? Whether it's art or not doesn't apply: libraries must provide info and knowledge; AV materials and entertainment are optional.
Again, in the netflix age, I'd gladly vote yes to cutting all movies (and I check out 3/week myself) if it means staff stay employed / available in the libraries to help.

Next, the issue of lower budget + more users: use the utility/ISP model: charge the highest users while keeping 'basic' level users free.
100 books at a time? that's high usage (i.e. lots of staff time), and perhaps its fair to charge for the extra burden. SoSea, 100 holds? There's so many people that don't pick up: what a huge waste of community time/money.

Suggestions:

a) Charge a small yearly fee, starting year#2, to SPL users that live outside Seattle.
b) Limit holds for free to say 25, but allow citizens to buy into the 'big holder club' (100 holds) at a modest yearly fee- Not to raise money really, but to discourage hold-everything folks.
c) penalize those who do not pick up holds with late fees: these books are in fact late getting back to the shelf AND they are in your name - this one is reasonable and logical; should be easy. And might inspire more responsible hold use (& less time wasted)
d) expand or double the return times for children's materials AND start a late fee: giving parents, and teachers especially, more flexibility than a 'regular' book, and teaching kids and kids'-book-users a little about the value of the lending system.
e) likewise cap the number of items you can have out at 50, but allow 'membership' upgrade to 100 for those in heavy research or with special heavy use. A modest/token fee for upgrade will discouraged those who aren't serious.
f) Express lane computers: mark 1/3 of the library computers as 20 minute or less usage. Enforce it. No, no revenue, but it helps get it into people's heads that there are more users than materials and we all need to share. There's a toxic sense of selfishness in the system now, rather than a prevailing sense of democracy.
g) Limit wait lists! DUH. You won't trigger any 5 to 1 ratio to get you to buy 300+ copies of a movie if the wait list only goes 25 deep. 1500+ deep on the waitlist? Ditch it!
h) If SPL insists on competing with Netflix, at least wait until new releases are old releases (and cheap). True with books too.
i) I really like the 'per month, first one's free, but $5 after that'/drug-dealer approach to ILL.
j) Continue to not fine ESL materials. ACLU lawyers would swarm up your bum in a heartbeat. Instead, lower lending limits by one everytime a material is late. In fact, apply that across the boards. Requires, perhaps, smarter cards than we have. [ Perhaps materials returned in 2 days or less grant you a 'bonus' of one extra material or day...]
k) if the average ILL cost is really $20-$30, I think some of those books could be bought for less. Change the program (charge that $30 for non-pickups) or shelve-for-one-year the ILL program! How many ILL are coming from nearby, transit-reachable libraries?

Alternative to apply to all:
Don't want to add fines? Okay, no problem there: use suspending lending ability instead: you ignore a hold book? Well guess who just got 2 days of not being able to check out ANYTHING? Or, your lending limit was 50? It's now 48. No money changes hands, but lesson learned / turnaround of materials sped up. ;)

Rev Smith: that's too complicated, from the insider commenters, limiting holds to drop excessive purchasing sounds like enough to close the deficit.

Yes, I've had 100(or close) HOLDS at a time, not checked out all at once. Like thousands of other patrons. The most that appeared at my branch at anytime was around 10, usually it was 3-5 items. 3-5 books or CDs or DVDs at a time is excessive?

How does that hold number get so high? if you are checking out any these on a regular basis:
1)DVDs
2)CDs
3)Childrens Books
4)Hobby books
5)Genre books (mystery, sf, romance, manga)
6)Research projects

Should patrons be allowed to hold so much? Probably not.

Should the ratio for holds to copies be changed? Definitely (5 holds=1 DVD?)

It intrigues me that many of the comments thumbing-down the
popular titles and DVD may forget (or even be the same people) that comlain to the City Council that 1) they have had to wait too long for their reserved item, 2) that the popular items are frequently stolen and prolonging the wait time, 3) that the pidling $35k is just enough to have saved of the the crucial/important clerical positions who perform the shelving, retrieving, and processing of the Interlibrary Loan materials.

I grow tired of the spin regarding disenfranchisement when it is a red herring.

In regards to the appearance of sleeping, I've seen the library staff roust folks courteously, be they poorly dressed or in business clothes. In fact, several years, the Real Change newpaper went undercover to 'sting' the library, but for the most part, left empty handed. They wrote that the security staff were firm, yet fair...and respectful. I applaud the library's security personnel for their professionalism.

I would urge the Stranger reporting team to delve deeper into the workings of the Seattle Public Library. I challenge you to write a more balanced article instead of appearing to sensationalize good faith proposals by our library to save jobs, and look for cost cutting measures during these hard times.

Yes, the downtown library architecture is odd, but the staff who work there as well as all the branches are die hard public service employees who care. I appreciate them

THANKS to The Stranger for reporting on news that is important to anyone who cares about the library, or cares about everyone in our community having access to materials including children, and immigrant populations. Thanks for reporting about something that will affect the ability for some people to do things like learn English or learn how to read.

Honestly, as a staff person I feel like the very serious concerns that staff raised have not been clearly explained. There was not just a few staff that were upset in fact almost anyone who is a librarian that I talked to were HORRIFIED by different aspects of this proposal. The thing that was on most librarians minds is charging fines for ESL and children's materials.

It was pretty clear that the administration basically believes what library staffer posted

"Everyone with a library card in good standing has the privilege of checking out materials for free. Parents need to be aware of what materials their children have out and return them on time. The library should explain to ESL users the fine policy, as well as other library policies, in the user's own language."

That is true everyone in good standing can check out materials and yes parents should pay attention to what their kids are checking out. Yes in a perfect world no one would ever damage an item, nor return it late, nor lose something either and every single book would come back perfectly clean. However, as some of us who live in the real world know this is not the case? There are too many children in our community that do not have stellar parents, or parents that must work multiple jobs, or parents that are drug addicts. Once the fines on children's materials are implemented every kid that does not have organized parents or parents who can afford to pay fines will eventually lose the privilege to check out books. SERIOUSLY, do we as a community feel comfortable taking away any access to books to kids with shitty parents, or overworked parents, or simply poor parents. Once they get $15 in fines they cannot check out even a single book again until they get their fines back under $15. Last I checked most kids do not have jobs and if your parents can not afford it or do not care if you read books then you are shit out of luck. Do we really feel comfortable as a community keeping books out of kids hands because they have lame parents?

In addition library staffer "The library should explain to ESL users the fine policy, as well as other library policies, in the user's own language." Do you have any fucking idea how much it costs to translate all our policies. We do it for the major language groups now and would love to do it for more but we cannot AFFORD IT. So if you happen to be an immigrant from a community that has recently been having a war for example and are not one of the top 10 language groups in Seattle you are also shit out of luck. I wish we could translate more in more languages, I wish we had tons more staff that spoke 100s of languages but we do not! Have you ever worked with an immigrant community? I have and it is really, really hard to communicate basic library concepts to people that do not speak English and have nothing that even approximates something like a free public library system. It is a learning process and the best way to just cut off that learning process is to give people fines on the first materials they check out, often ESL materials. I am not saying that because you are a new immigrant from Somalia that you should check out every DVD in the library and not get a fine, but ESL materials? Yes, let's screw the folks who are trying to LEARN English.

Rest assured the very little relative revenue, seriously these kids and ESL patrons are not going to give us so much money it saves even one job, are not worth the havoc we will create in some of our more needy patrons lives.

Screw it people can have a few less items checked out, and they can put a few less things on hold but we are talking about fines creating barriers to the very populations front line librarians have been killing ourselves, and working our asses off to serve. It is very rare that once kids and ESL patrons get fines do they ever come back. Shame on you Seattle Public administration for effectively turning away needy patrons, and shame on you ignatz for pretending that this will actually do anything to stop layoffs, or library closures. Shame on you ignatz again for pretending that it was only a few folks. It was lots of us, our voices were strong and once again administration ignored us. I am not sure that the person who leaked intranet docs (which by the way people they are public because all library emails, doc.s etc,. are public as we are a public institution) did the correct moral things in terms of respecting other staff members but they were not a single malcontent, and they took the only avenue they saw when an administration continually ignores the well thought out perspectives and comments of their own professional staff. So good job malcontents of the world keep speaking out. If you think it is wrong to be unrealistic about the reality some children live in and if you think it is wrong to expect people new to our country who are trying to learn English to completely understand a 3 week loan period and fines structure then come to the meeting and speak out. If you think it is wrong that the library administration (a few people) should not listen to the excellent staff that actually serve patrons, or if you think a few administrative people should make far reaching decisions for the public then speak out. Finally, if you wonder just a little why we did not have fines on these materials in the first place and think it might be because it HELPED certain groups of patrons and you care about people that do not have voices in our community then speak out.

Speak out by writing your city librarian, she works for you BTW. Speak out by coming into any library and filling out a comment form. Most importantly speak out by going to the library board meeting and let them know you are outraged that your library system is cutting costs that unfairly target people who may need a little extra support. There has to be another way to save this little bit of money, staff gave other suggestions, come give your suggestions too. If you only care the middle class, native speakers, who can afford to pay late charges for themselves, or have parents that are actually able to parent to the fullest then don’t do anything, or better yet talk about how staff trying to help these people are just “complaining”

The next Libbrary Board meeting is
4:30 p.m. Wednesday, June 24
downtown library on the 4th floor.
They are always open to the public!

THANKS to The Stranger for reporting on news that is important to anyone who cares about the library, or cares about everyone in our community having access to materials including children, and immigrant populations. Thanks for reporting about something that will affect the ability for some people to do things like learn English or learn how to read.



Honestly, as a staff person I feel like the very serious concerns that staff raised have not been clearly explained. There was not just a few staff that were upset in fact almost anyone who is a librarian that I talked to were HORRIFIED by different aspects of this proposal. The thing that was on most librarians minds is charging fines for ESL and children's materials.



It was pretty clear that the administration basically believes what library staffer posted



"Everyone with a library card in good standing has the privilege of checking out materials for free. Parents need to be aware of what materials their children have out and return them on time. The library should explain to ESL users the fine policy, as well as other library policies, in the user's own language."



That is true everyone in good standing can check out materials and yes parents should pay attention to what their kids are checking out. Yes in a perfect world no one would ever damage an item, nor return it late, nor lose something either and every single book would come back perfectly clean. However, as some of us who live in the real world know this is not the case? There are too many children in our community that do not have stellar parents, or parents that must work multiple jobs, or parents that are drug addicts. Once the fines on children's materials are implemented every kid that does not have organized parents or parents who can afford to pay fines will eventually lose the privilege to check out books. SERIOUSLY, do we as a community feel comfortable taking away any access to books to kids with shitty parents, or overworked parents, or simply poor parents. Once they get $15 in fines they cannot check out even a single book again until they get their fines back under $15. Last I checked most kids do not have jobs and if your parents can not afford it or do not care if you read books then you are shit out of luck. Do we really feel comfortable as a community keeping books out of kids hands because they have lame parents?



In addition library staffer "The library should explain to ESL users the fine policy, as well as other library policies, in the user's own language." Do you have any fucking idea how much it costs to translate all our policies. We do it for the major language groups now and would love to do it for more but we cannot AFFORD IT. So if you happen to be an immigrant from a community that has recently been having a war for example and are not one of the top 10 language groups in Seattle you are also shit out of luck. I wish we could translate more in more languages, I wish we had tons more staff that spoke 100s of languages but we do not! Have you ever worked with an immigrant community? I have and it is really, really hard to communicate basic library concepts to people that do not speak English and have nothing that even approximates something like a free public library system. It is a learning process and the best way to just cut off that learning process is to give people fines on the first materials they check out, often ESL materials. I am not saying that because you are a new immigrant from Somalia that you should check out every DVD in the library and not get a fine, but ESL materials? Yes, let's screw the folks who are trying to LEARN English.



Rest assured the very little relative revenue, seriously these kids and ESL patrons are not going to give us so much money it saves even one job, are not worth the havoc we will create in some of our more needy patrons lives.



Screw it people can have a few less items checked out, and they can put a few less things on hold but we are talking about fines creating barriers to the very populations front line librarians have been killing ourselves, and working our asses off to serve. It is very rare that once kids and ESL patrons get fines do they ever come back. Shame on you Seattle Public administration for effectively turning away needy patrons, and shame on you ignatz for pretending that this will actually do anything to stop layoffs, or library closures. Shame on you ignatz again for pretending that it was only a few folks. It was lots of us, our voices were strong and once again administration ignored us. I am not sure that the person who leaked intranet docs (which by the way people they are public because all library emails, doc.s etc,. are public as we are a public institution) did the correct moral things in terms of respecting other staff members but they were not a single malcontent, and they took the only avenue they saw when an administration continually ignores the well thought out perspectives and comments of their own professional staff. So good job malcontents of the world keep speaking out. If you think it is wrong to be unrealistic about the reality some children live in and if you think it is wrong to expect people new to our country who are trying to learn English to completely understand a 3 week loan period and fines structure then come to the meeting and speak out. If you think it is wrong that the library administration (a few people) should not listen to the excellent staff that actually serve patrons, or if you think a few administrative people should make far reaching decisions for the public then speak out. Finally, if you wonder just a little why we did not have fines on these materials in the first place and think it might be because it HELPED certain groups of patrons and you care about people that do not have voices in our community then speak out.



Speak out by writing your city librarian, she works for you BTW. Speak out by coming into any library and filling out a comment form. Most importantly speak out by going to the library board meeting and let them know you are outraged that your library system is cutting costs that unfairly target people who may need a little extra support. There has to be another way to save this little bit of money, staff gave other suggestions, come give your suggestions too. If you only care the middle class, native speakers, who can afford to pay late charges for themselves, or have parents that are actually able to parent to the fullest then don’t do anything, or better yet talk about how staff trying to help these people are just “complaining”



The next Libbrary Board meeting is
4:30 p.m. Wednesday, June 24
downtown library on the 4th floor.
They are always open to the public

I also work at the library, and while Paul's article is hyperbolic, I have to say that there is a great deal of truth to what "servingthepublic" says. Commenters who urge library staff to "grow up" should know that it was not merely the necessity for cutbacks that aroused the concerns of a lot of staff - myself included - but a sense that we could do this in more balanced ways that would not take a disproportionate toll on our poorest and most vulnerable patrons, and their children.

As far as the ability of staff to have input in the decisions and policies of the library (something that is of scant interest to the general public, but is crucial to the people who serve you), we have seen this minimized to virtually nothing over the past several months. Not sure what "Eric Blair's" angle on this is - I suspect a lurking library administrator copping the tone of some disaffected young Bill O'Reilly fan? (Seriously - who IS this Stranger reader who riffs on Reagan and Stephen Colbert, minus the irony?) In any case, they need to lay off the Kool-Aid. There are serious concerns shared by a great many staff at the library about the direction that things have been going there, and about the inability of almost everyone who works there to have any meaningful input in how we serve the public and how we can meet the challenges that we as an organization, and our growing number of users, face. I thought that "1984" was a pretty apt reference for the kind of groupthink and doublespeak that have become so prevalent on the top floor of your library lately.

Oops I "shamed on you" to Ignatz but was actually referring to the post by Eric Blair. My apologies…

My goodness, yes - now I take another look at it, it is patently obvious that "Eric Blair" (and possibly the "Library staffer" who follows) are shills from SPL's policy makers themselves. Exhibiting inside knowledge of the situation (the use of material from the staff intranet, for example, isn't mentioned before that), going on long screeds in defense of library administration, taking librarian "malcontents" to task for complaining ON WORK TIME - who does that? Who else but Big Brother would tell Winston Smith to stop whining and do their job?

Give that comment another read if you want to see what your library staff is really up against.

To the (studiously lower case) "ch-ch-ch-changes" (so hip! so now!) - do YOU work in a library, "dude"?

ch-ch-changes, I love Bowie too! Nope no foaming at the mouth, just a little sun kissed from playing outdoors.

It is true working in a library is not the hardest job in the world, in fact it is not really hard at all when you get to do what you love. Although, I admire librarians there are tons of other jobs that I think are much more intense. What I should have said is that there has been lots of library staff putting their all into serving patrons that are often hard to reach, kids and non-native speakers for example. So although the job is not hard, when you put real passion into your work and your work is to help other people your work takes lots of energy. So in that sense people have been "working their asses off".

I do not think we should give books away nor do I hate the middle class and am even a member of that class. I do think we should be thoughtful when creating undue barriers to libraries when the cost is far greater then the benefit. Certainly, giving all kids, regardless of how tough their home situation is, a chance to have access to books is a fundamental library ideal and not at all akin to changing criminal laws. Again I ask why did we have this money losing policy in the first place if it was not to help reduce barriers to the library? Yes budgets suck but is that enough reason to take away safety nets, especially when it will do very little in the big picture to keep our doors open or stop furloughs?

As yet another staff person I think the potential issues brought up by fellow staff are worth talking about. For over 3 years I worked in a branch where there are lots of latch key kids and non-English speaking immigrants I think these policies will limit access to materials for these groups. I agree with Nancy Pearl that "Raising money on the backs of children and immigrants will hurt people with no voice in the political process." I also agree with servingthepublic that it is worth asking why the policy was in place and what are the potential consequences to changing it?

I think it is great that staff have differing opinions. Almost all the library staff I have ever worked with are smart, dedicated, and creative people. Public input about library policies is important. The public and staff should be involved and vocal on both good and bad perspectives about their library. Getting lots of people/perspectives involved always makes for a well rounded institution. At the end of the day soemone has to make a decision but taking input and being flexible during the process before hand is invaluable.

I totally agree with the several staffers above and encourage you to go to the meeting, phone or write an email. Ask questions, bring ideas, support or challenge parts or all of the policy changes but if you use the library or care about how the library does or does not work get involved.

I think this debate is great. It's not surprising that employee opinions vary as much as public ones; in a large company/system, people are going to have different ideas about what will be most effective (and some are just more grumpy/pissed than others; they're only human!).

But the fact that so many staff members are on here is proof that they care deeply about the libraries and their customers which is also obvious if you go into a branch and talk to any of them.

It seems to me that limiting holds will give more access to people who don't have computers at home or aren't computer savvy and rely on finding things on the shelves. And it's too bad parents will have to pay fines for their kids' books, but at least people won't be losing their jobs and we can still have cool people in the libraries to help us find what we need.

Thank you for your comments Marbles. Your post made my brain tickle "hurray, someone who understands". I am also a Seattle Public Library (SPL) employee and proud of it, but I have to admit that I have been embarrassed by some of my colleague’s comments.

First of all, as several of the readers have pointed out, members of the public have a chance to participate in providing feedback regarding SPL policies at our monthly Board meetings. I encourage anyone to attend if you feel strongly about the services provided by SPL or would like to share your opinions.

Secondly, while it is not ideal that we might be assessing fines for overdue Children's materials, or reducing the number of materials checked out or placed on hold, the thought behind the policy revisions (as I understand it) is to ensure that the same library materials are available to more members of our community. The library has statistics regarding the number of overdue children’s materials and items placed on hold that were never picked up. It was never the intent of the library to ‘make money’ to replace our shrinking budget.

Finally, I would like to defend Susan as our new City Librarian. She entered a job where her first task was to reduce the operating budget. As a good executive, Susan not only looked at the numbers on paper, but also tried to review all our operations and services for areas to streamline. I acknowledge that certain decisions have been made without staff input, but I give her credit for allowing us the opportunity to comment. Ultimately as the head of our organization, she has the right to make the final recommendations for the board, hopefully after giving full consideration to all the comments received. We have chosen her to be our leader, and we need to let her lead. With a strong leader and supportive staff, I think that SPL can weather through this economy and still provide the great service that Seattle has come to expect from us.

I am a librarian writing from Portland. Our system, Multnomah County Library, is heavily used and well-loved, like yours.
I went to school at UW, so I know the SPL and I admire it.

We can have 15 holds at one time, and check out 150 items, (15 DVDs). I think 150 items on one card sounds like a lot, but apparently it is working for now.

If I may be so bold as to give an opinion--give your new Director a chance, and your support...you have one of the best systems in the country. The changes she is advocating are likely the mildest of what you're going to have to deal with. You can dissent, give your opinions, but think about what you are really asking for...we are in the middle of an extreme financial crisis, and it will affect every institution, even KCLS!
There is always conflict within the community about what libraries should or should not have. It is quite a skill to
please everyone, and not everyone "gets" what the library is for. It certainly should, and does, cater to the low income and immigrants. But less holds, less books, a charge for ILL, are not horrific changes, and are common. Most likely, it would encourage responsibility to fine children's books--for everyone. It seems that calling this racist is overreacting. Libraries do have some limits. Perhaps she is wiser than you are giving her credit for. Let your new Director implement some changes, and see what happens. If it doesn't work, then she'll try some other ways...I wish everyone well, and I miss Seattle!

Another SPL employee here, commenting briefly after a few people made it clear to me that they thought I already HAD commented (which is disconcerting, let me tell you).

There is too much heat and not enough light here, and so I think it should be mentioned (and I don’t think this violates any confidences that haven’t already been violated) that the original stream of employee feedback that inspired this piece – 35 comments by 29 different staff members from across the organization – was entirely constructive, thoughtful and respectful in nature. Nobody ‘attacked’ our new City Librarian, and several staff made a point of thanking her. Opinions ranged across a spectrum, but many suggested (or urged) pretty much the same thing you’ll see in Nancy Pearl’s full statement, posted today in the Slog: “Personally, if the library has to take cuts now I would prefer to see the cuts not be directed at children and immigrants. Let’s take the cuts where they are politically painful. That way we stand a better chance of seeing the funding restored when the economy gets better.” Which strikes me as a very reasonable, rational and savvy suggestion. There was no railing, no theatrics: it was a succession of reasoned feedback from dedicated professionals. (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…)

(I think it is also only fair to point out that none of what those 29 staff members suggested lead to any change whatsoever in the proposals going before the library board tonight. And, unless I’m mistaken, I think it was around the time that this was announced that the comments were shared with The Stranger. So while I’m not excusing it, I certainly understand how disenfranchised the so-called “malcontent(s)” was/were feeling when they did what they did).

In contrast to that we have the attitudes of whatever party or parties have seen fit to attack those staff who were critical of the proposed policy here in these comments (Eric Blair, ch-ch-ch-changes, librarian). These seem to me to bristle with contempt directed at individuals. Which is, as servingthepublic says, pretty shameful, especially if they are, as Library Staffer suggests, contributed by employees themselves. I think it is important that the public know that this kind of vitriolic, ad hominem stuff is far from what staff who were critical of the policy put forth. Those staff were not malcontents. They were dedicated professionals who I feel honored to work beside.

That’s all. Maybe it was obvious, but I just felt that needed to be put out there.

These changes are not at all about revenue. There's a flood of changes now. Some high ups have a yen for "uniformity" and other such values that don't work on the front line.

Did you know SPL has a new directive so they've stopped checking to see if DVDs are in the case when they're checked in? It's slowing handling time. SO when you check one out one and it's not there - you'll be dinged or end up fighting with them about it. This is just one of the simpler new idiocies to come down from on high. While the rest of the world is learning to do inclusive management and teams Seattle is going to top down dictatorial styles.

You want to save real money? (Not the inflated $36,000 all this bruhaha is about) Ask the staff. For starters Look into the DVD theft rate at SPL.

First off, these comments are entertaining reading. "Last I checked most kids do not have jobs and if your parents can not afford it or do not care if you read books then you are shit out of luck. Do we really feel comfortable as a community keeping books out of kids hands because they have lame parents?"

Umn, yes. Yes I do feel comfortable keeping books out of kids hands if the kids can't make an effort to get the books back on time. I know, I suck. I would like kids to learn that there is something known as responsibility, I would like kids to learn that you can not just take things from your neighbors because they are left unattended. I would like to know that when I violate a rule there is a consequence. How did I learn that? By watching my parents steal lawn mowers, do meth, or let library books sit under the washing machine for nine months, two weeks, and four days before dumping detergent on them by accident, and then chucking them in the trash, and then going back to ask for another book and being told--hmn which is the correct answer--sure you can have more books for free or--no sorry you need to find another place to get books now?

Come on. I worked in family literacy for years and in a school with the lowest reading levels in the district, and met my fair share of bad ass parents who were addicted to drugs and worked at Boeing who lost custody of thier kids. Kids have access to books through aunts with library cards, kids have access to books through teachers who are cool enough to bring books into classrooms and those teachers are legion, and kids have access to books from the school library.

Be real. Who wrote this stentence: Raising money on the backs of children and immigrants will hurt people with no voice in the political process.

As far as I'm concerned, telling people they aren't responsible enough to follow rules is insulting and counterproductive. It isn't about the money.

61: "Raising money on the backs of children and immigrants will hurt people with no voice in the political process." This is a quote from Nancy Pearl, probably the single most respected librarian in the country.