The librarians are making some noise. Saying “someone in the outside
world should know,” a Seattle Public Library (SPL) staffer forwarded
The Stranger a series of internal documents proposing policy
changes designed to decrease services and extract money from the
library’s most vulnerable patrons: old people, poor people, immigrants,
and children. (The staffer requested to remain anonymous, citing a
“sort of 1984 atmosphere at the library these days… morale is
low.”)
According to the documents—internal e-mails, budgets, and
meeting minutes and agendas—the proposed changes include charging
$5 for interlibrary loans (when SPL borrows a title from another
library system), adding late fees for ESL and children’s materials,
cutting the number of items a customer can put on hold from 100 to 25,
and halving the number of items anyone can check out at one time to 50.
The leaked papers also explain the reason for these new
policies—increased fines “could result in an estimated $36,000 in
annual revenue.”
None of the librarians I contacted for comment wanted to be named in
this article, but all have an opinion about the new policies:
They’re bad.
On SPL intranet threads forwarded to The Stranger, one
staffer says homebound and bedridden patrons, who only receive services
once a month, would be disproportionately hurt by the tighter borrowing
limits. “We are frequently their only source of information and
entertainment,” she adds.
A librarian at a branch of SPL with a great many Spanish-speaking
patrons—but not so many Spanish-language materials—believes
that charging $5 for interlibrary loans “will seriously inhibit our
ability to provide good basic services to new Americans and other
non-English speakers.” Another laments that SPL has “spent years in
outreach… educating parents that SPL is fine-free for children’s
materials” to “encourage access for all,” especially low-income
children struggling in school. Another chastises the library for
monetizing late fees: “Fines should serve the purpose of educating
young patrons and encouraging timeliness, NOT increasing revenue.”
A few complaints fall just shy of calling the policies racist,
especially language stating that they will “encourage responsibility.”
One staffer suggests that some immigrants and refugees hold two or
three jobs, become overwhelmed with responsibilities, and are already
afraid or embarrassed to come back to the library because they returned
a book late. Fining ESL and children’s books, the staffer says, would
only exacerbate the problem.
Nancy Pearl, former executive director of SPL’s Washington Center
for the Book and current author and NPR book reviewer, says, “The
library’s in an impossible position, and learning and literacy will
suffer for it. Adding new fees will of course reduce reading—it
always does. Raising money on the backs of children and immigrants will
hurt people with no voice in the political process.
“But what’s SPL supposed to do? Our libraries compete for funds with
police, fire, road repairs, public health, and everything else on the
city budget. The most effective library finances are in those
communities with a separate library district, like King County, or
where library funding comes off the top, like San Francisco. Seattle
needs to move out of the municipal budget fight. The library board
should start that work now.”
The library board was supposed to discuss and vote on these changes
at a meeting on May 27, but after hearing numerous complaints from
staff, new city librarian Susan Hildreth asked to postpone the
discussion until the following board meeting on June 24. Hildreth
wanted to allow time for SPL employees to air their grievances. (The
new materials policy seems to further a conservative institutional
trend of focusing on problem customers. What the board did approve at
the May 27 meeting: a new “rules of conduct” policy designed to push
out the homeless, including prohibition of all rolling carts except
strollers, the ability to ban violators from a library for two years
instead of one, and possible ejection for “appearing to be
sleeping.”)
Why isn’t SPL notifying taxpayers of these changes? Why do
frustrated staffers find it necessary to contact the press anonymously?
Andra Addison, communications director for SPL, admits that the library
provided “public notice but not detailed information” about the
materials policy changes. The library, she said, posts all
board-meeting agendas on its website and would send out a press release
the following week. Three hours after I called Addison, SPL issued a
detailed press release about the proposed changes.
Addison disagrees that the changes are punitive. “We’d love to not
charge fines, but we can’t do that,” she says. Circulation at the
library has increased 20 percent in the last year, and SPL has to
consider new ways of efficiently serving more people with less money.
Mayor Nickels asked SPL to cut its budget at least 3 percent in
2009.
Nor does Addison think the fees will be prohibitive: “We raised our
fees in 2003, and our circulation is higher than ever.” More people are
using the library more this year because more people are unemployed,
and of course SPL needs to stay within strict budget constraints, but
is now the time to penalize groups who have been hit hardest by the
recession?
Addison especially bemoans the inter-library loan system, which she
says costs an average of $20 to $30 per book: “One that was put through
the other day cost $150.” She points out that less than 8 percent of
inter-library loan requests are for foreign-language materials. She
calls interlibrary loan “kind of a supplemental service.”
This proposed $5 fee has drawn the most criticism. Becky Norman, the
interlibrary loan manager at King County Library System (KCLS), says
King County libraries file a similar number of interlibrary loans as
SPL—”well over 2,000 [items] a month”—and doesn’t charge
for those loans unless the lending library requires payment, something
that happens only “about 10 percent of the time.” Holly Koelling, the
director of circulation at KCLS, calls interlibrary loan “an important
service.”
Staffers weren’t just complaining—many had ideas to make
money. One suggested charging for interlibrary loans not picked up, or
allowing a certain number of loans before a fee kicks in, or fining
patrons who never check out items they put on hold.
The window for staff suggestions has passed, but it didn’t really
matter: None of the SPL staffers’ complaints or suggestions have
influenced the proposed changes. Addison says the board hasn’t set its
agenda for the June 24 meeting but will “probably” discuss the new
policies. Two SPL employees insist that SPL officials have said the
policies “will definitely be voted on at the next board meeting.”
Either way, there will be an opportunity for public comment.
I work at the library in Tacoma, and let me tell you, we too have a “sort of 1984 atmosphere” and low morale (due to incompetence from our library director on down to some supervisors and branch managers).
We are also dealing with a budget deficit, and just cut off Saturday phone service to all our branches, until Labor Day, because of this. In other words, if you wanted to call us on a Saturday to ask a question about such-and-such an item, or wanted to know an address or phone number, or anything else our excellent Q.I. Department could tell you, you’re out of luck. You’ll just get an answering machine with basic information.
The library board apparently didn’t flinch when told this news. BUT THEN, after a private executive session, they somehow saw fit to give our library director, Susan Odencrantz, a five percent raise. FIVE PERCENT! The library’s going through a crisis here, with too-few employess already stretched dangerously thin and they give her a fucking raise! It’s outrageous! It’s too bad that this isn’t more widely known here, otherwise there’d be a backlash (or at least I hope)… sorry, this was supposed to be about the Seattle Public Library, wasn’t it? Had to vent. So I guess my point would be, don’t think that you’re the only ones have problems. Incompetence and stupidity are everywhere
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!
I, too, work for Seattle Public Library and wish Susan well in her tenure as our leader. I believe the upset among staff and the leaking of the library blog have cone about because many people are frustrated by an apparent lack of collaboration and transparency as library administration works to deal with some difficult questions quickly.
I believe staff members are reacting not only to the actual proposals, but the way in which 2 major decisions have been made and communicated since Susan Hildreth came–a reorganization of the downtown library structure and the changes in fines and fees.
The reorganization of Central was decided and revealed to staff in a less collaborative and open manner than many staff would have expected at SPL. We were hoping for a more open decision making process than we had had before. And this first big change did not reflect the culture as many of us see it or long for it to be.
Secondly, the proposal for changes in fees, fines and borrowing periods was put into the Board packet for consideration with no communication to front line staff. Many workers feel Susan was called out on this action which seemed less than transparent. Only then did she invite input.
Susan has arrived at SPL at a challenging economic time. It seems to me that in times of challenge (or crisis), communication is more important than ever–communication both up and down the organizational chart. We need to cooperate even more to make things stretch and flow in a time of seeming scarcity. We (and the public) need to know very clearly the how and why of decisions. And we like to have meaningful input. This can result in better outcomes and “buy in” for the solutions.
Susan has an opportunity to be a visionary leader who gets things done while bringing us together in an inspirational way. I hope she will step up and let us see that side of her.
This is the time that will set the tone for her administration. We need to give her some room to learn about who we at SPL are and about the culture of this institution. And she needs to be in open dialog with us about what kind of library we will be going forward.
Yes, she is in charge and has the ultimate responsibilty to make decisions. In order to make excellent decisions, however, I believe she has to leave the 11th floor and be courageous and wise enough to hear what folks throughout the system are thinking and feeling.
We are smart and funny and hard working and we really care about the mission of the library and the people we serve. And we care about each other. We really do care.
Please, Susan, work with us. We all want to move the library forward. None of us wants to be sidetracked with all this uproar. We want to get back to providing excellent service, even with economic and staffing limitations. Please work with us so we can work joyfully with you to provide excellent service to the citizens of our city!
What Summer said!
Forget my earlier, wiseass post; summer’s comments from a neutral vantage point (Portland) are excellent and realistically describe the practicalities of the situation.
It’s always appropriate to ask “why?” when policies change, but it’s irresponsible to cast stones without trying to understand the intent behind them.
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.