Not having any background in library science, my question is why only 50%
available to the public? Why not 60% or 70%?
>A new Central Library building will be designed for better security with a
>security system, cameras and monitoring throughout the building . Even
>though more items (a little more than 50%, up from 15%) will be accessible
>to the public for browsing, much older and valuable materials will be on
>compact shelving in stack areas adjacent to the open shelves and closely
>monitored by staff.
>
>We greatly appreciate the interest and support of library users in helping
>protect our wonderful library resources which belong to all of us.
>Jan Feye-Stukas, Associate Director
>Minneapolis Public Library
>300 Nicollet Mall
>Minneapolis, MN 55408
>PH: 612-630-6208
>FAX: 612-630-6210
>Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>From: dave dix [ <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 2:37 PM
>To: Multiple recipients of list
>Subject: Re: An answer to Lisa McDonald's other question
>
>
>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]
>>
>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>
sheldon mains, seward neighborhood, minneapolis
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
the shameless agitator in the electronic town square
