Hamilton, Colin J wrote:
> I'd like to address a couple of the issues raised by the anonymous library
> letter.
>
> Disgruntled employees are a reality in most organizations, and certainly not
> uncommon in an organization as large as our library system (with about 400
> staff members). And tensions are always highest when contracts are being
> negotiated.
I thought it spoke more to the issue of overall staff morale being low, rather
than individual employees being "disgruntled." Certainly, when that's the case
the fact that the building is a constant annoyance doesn't help matters.
> Personally, I don't blame someone for wanting to remain
> anonymous, but I do object when he or she claims to be speaking for the
> staff as a whole.
Did this person speak for the whole staff?
> I work in, but not for, the library, and I have never
> heard a single library staff member say they thought this building was
> adequate for the needs of our community.
This issue is not the adequacy of this building. It hasn't been adequate from
day one and we all know it who are library users.
> There is nothing scientific to it,
> but in my dealing with staff, I've found that people recognize the physical
> shortcomings of our libraries and are very excited about the prospect of
> physically improving them. This view is shared by the DFL, GOP, League of
> Women Voters, Star Tribune, Southwest Journal, The Northeaster, and many
> labor and neighborhood associations that have endorsed the referendum.
That view is shared by most, if not all, library users, I would estimate.
>
>
> The anonymous author raises questions about re-building the library on the
> current site. It's always easy to rattle off alternatives locations, harder
> to make them work. Take, for example, the Nicollet Hotel block. Because it
> is smaller, the new library would have to be taller.
I would not bet on that being the actual case. Ask whether or not moving the
library across the street would require changing the footprint to any great
extent. City Council often knuckles under to developers who come up with the
silliest reasons--based on nothing so much as whim--about why such and such a
project would work or not. That's how you wind up spending $4 million to move a
theater one block. Cloud Cookooland, here we come!
> And, as a building
> increases in size its operating costs go up exponentially. So we have a
> choice: a two and a half year period with an interim library OR a building
> that is permanently more expensive to operate. The implementation committee
> (comprised of city, library, business and citizens representatives) looked
> at 20+ sites before agreeing that the best location for the new library
> would be the current site. They made this decision knowing it would require
> interim space, but agreeing that it was in the best long-term interests of
> the city. They made their decision after examining a number of criteria,
> including operating costs, access to public transit (including future light
> rail lines), and access, via skyways, to the downtown core.
Now we are to the meat of this issue. It was at this point when an advertizing
agency should have been brought into the situation to plan a saturation
informational campaign. All of this talk is happening at the last minute
becasue this did not happen.
>
>
> One final note: currently the Central Library attracts about 800,000
> visitors a year. It's an impressive number, but actually fairly modest when
> you compare it to other comparable cities. Nationwide, when cities have
> built new central libraries, they have typically seen use double or even
> triple. Imagine the value added to our downtown - both for businesses and
> for those who enjoy vibrant city centers - if a new library attracts an
> additional 800,000 to 1,000,000 visitors per year.
I find it most interesting that all of the people who are asking questions and
talking are library users. Because of some quirky ordinance or law, the library
is not able to toot it's own horn about the value of a new library to us. That
is the job of the Friends of the Library. The board put $25,000 into an
informational campaign with the Friends. It seems to me the height of arrogance
to assume that you can "earn/win/accumulate/whatever" $140 million if you only
invest $25,000 in informing your 300,000 plus potential investors. (BIG
CAVEAT: Colin's only been on board about 20 minutes, he is not responsible for
previous bad decisions.) I don't think the Friends are at fault for this major
goof.
My sense of it is that the library board thinks the city is "ready" to pass this
referendum. However, there are thousands of competing projects and all of them
are on the soapbox touting the advantages of their projects. It's easy to get
lost in the shuffle and getting lost is guaranteed if you squeak like a mouse
instead of projecting your voice from the diaphram, so to speak.
> I, too, want a new library. I haven't liked this one since the first day I
> walked in the door and I'm the kind of person who would spend money just to
> visit the Biblioteque National or the Bodleayn (excuse my spelling, it
> sucks). But, at some $58--at current assessment) per year, I do think I
> should hear and be able to chew over, the proposal before you ask me to
> invest.
I also want it to be gracious and welcoming and used well.I want a tremendously
improved book budget for the branches. How is this $140 we're spending going to
impact that issue?I want adequate additions and repairs to Sumner and Franklin
branches.
Overall, on this library issue, I don't feel respected as a voter and the
library is asking me to give them money for 30 years. That's why I haven't made
up my mind yet--and probably won't before I walk in the booth next Tuesday?
Wizard Marks, Central
>
>
> Colin Hamilton
> Executive Director
> Friends of the Minneapolis Public Library
> 612/630-6172
> 612/630-6180 (fax)
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
