Two things:
First, "thinking outside the box"
Insofar as the library is/was thinking outside the box,
their thinking has taken place over a ten-year period. Some
of the issues were cost saving, usefulness to patrons,
workability for staff.
Factoid: Every additional floor raises staff costs.
Over the last ten years library staff, in concert with the
board, has come up with what they need to make the library
functional. They do have a bead on this issue.
Also, having put ten years of work into it, they are
justified if they are not happy when people step in and
second guess them at the 11th hour. Too, there is a blue
ribbon implementation committee working away at answering
these questions. In electing the board and perhaps not
giving other input, we have said we will let them make these
decisions. As the Tribune reported, it cost heavy bucks,
which could go to implementation, just to delay the decision
for one month and do further "study."
Factoid(?): Louis Sullivan was a nineteenth century
architect who, along with some philosopher who's name I can
no longer remember, was the first to publish
form-follows-function as a way to design massive
architecture. Sullivan may have achieved
form-follow-function, but at the same time his buildings
were ornately beautiful on the outside at least.
Ergo, having a functional library does not preclude having a
beautiful space and facade.
MPL staff have spent hours considering the ways that
libraries MAY go working with futurists and probably library
futurists. But future-guessing is a crap shoot in many ways.
Ten years ago computer types were promising us paperless
offices in five years if we went whole hog into computers.
Didn't happen. Probably cannot happen in some ways like the
need for original documents for all sorts of things.
The drawback of using the South block now that the board and
staff have waded through choosing it, is having to move the
whole operation twice. That is a colossal drag, hard on
staff, patrons, and books.
Overlapping libraries:
Here are three factors to consider in looking at
consolidation of two systems. there are two different types
of governance. Henn Co. is governed by the County
Commissioners, Mpls has a board of trustees. That would have
to be reconfigured.
Two, there are two different cataloging systems, one is
Dewey, the other is Library of Congress. It would take
umpteen zillion dollars and years to align one with the
other.
Three, there are two entirely different corporate cultures
and this would be the biggest, most time consuming and
long-winded to change and would exact a price on staff and
consequently on patrons and vice versa, would affect the
collection, etc.
I would also argue that inner-city libraries, which are
already squeezed for resources and staff, would become more
neglected as a result. As each of the newly refurbished
community libraries comes on line, a greater budget deficit
accrues. When all of them are completed, the deficit will be
way hefty.
Wizard Marks, Central
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
