I have talked to library staff several times about theft ,vandalism and
unreturned material at the Central library.
I was consistently given estimates of 10% of the collection being lost
each year as a result these behaviors. Won't opening the stacks make this
situation much worse? The only way I see to restrict it with open stacks is
to have security -minded people in nearly every row.
I have donated valuable, one of a kind material to the library only to have
it stolen, so I know what kind of damage is done.
What approach is most expensive?
1. Open stacks and increased access with increased theft with higher
security
2. Open stacks and increased access with increased theft with no security
3. Closed stacks with more security.
As a person who does lots of research at the library and appreciates the
depth of its collection, I would much rather see closed stacks and better
security than see the loss of material to a handful of idiots and people
too lazy to return books. I would also like to see people who don't return
books within a reasonable amount of time charged with misdemeanor criminal
theft or at least ticketed and fined at the same legal level as parking
violators .
Dave Dix
Philips
Ward 6
>
> One of the reasons to rebuild the Central Library is to make more of the
> collection accessible to the public. Today, only about 15% is on public
> shelves; the other 85% can only be accessed by library staff. In a new
> Central Library, more than 50% of the collection would be immediately
> accessible to the public.
>
> The question McDonald asks is, "If more of the collection is accessible in
a
> new library, would the library still need as much staff?" [Not a direct
> quote, despite the quotations.]
>
> Judging from the experiences of new central libraries in other cities, the
> answer is yes: We would need a staff of roughly the same size, but they
> would be used for more skilled tasks than retrieving books. In most
cities
> where new libraries have been built, library usage has doubled. In
> Vancouver, it has nearly tripled. Closer to home, since renovating our
> Hosmer branch, we have seen its usage more than triple. Library
projections
> show that Minneapolis Central Library use will increase from about 800,000
> annual visitors to nearly 1.5 million, and that Central Library
circulation
> will increase from about 1 million items to nearly 2 million. And as
> library use goes up, you have more people asking questions, needing
> assistance, and filling check out lines.
>
> In the current situation with so many books inaccessible to the pbulic,
> library staff spend a significant amount of time retrieving books for
> patrons. In a new library, we expect to use a comparable staff far more
> effectively: answering questions, directing users, coaching people in
> computer and Internet use, etc., etc. - in other words, using their
> expertise in the most productive manner. This ties directly back to
> McDonald's previous question: are we just providing more computers, or
> helping people use them? Librarians have the expertise to help library
> users navigate an increasingly complex world of information technology -
and
> isn't that a better use of staff time than the industrial age service of
> retrieving books?
>
> Colin Hamilton
> Executive Director
> Friends of the Minneapolis Public Library
> 612/630-6172
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
