Yes I agree, but there does need to be a rationalisation of what
buildings we have where (many librarians would close some if the
'politicians' didn't interfere). Communities change, needs change, we
need a more flexible approach to moving sites and buildings. Virtual
will be a part of future services, but of course we will always need
staff. But it is rather like opening hours, we may open libraries late,
but are they the right hours, do we need to be open all day in some
locations, what about quick service, drive in etc, we need a new look at
how we reduce overheads and maintain the sort of service users, but also
potential users , need in the 21st Century.

Having a lot of staff if they are not customer focused (and I am not
implying here current staff are not), is not the answer., you know the
posh departmental stores, where glamorous staff hang around doing
nothing, that isn't the answer, but there may be a point in some self
issuing, not sending overdoes, not charging fines unless there is a real
surplus on the activity, and so on.

I am not sure either that we should assume that non qualified staff
means cheaper staff., what we need are salaries related to the work that
people do, and benchmarked to other similar work. Does anyone do bench
marking on library work?

I also agree that a direct comparison with book shops has its dangers
and is not entirely relevant, as the common factor is books, but
bookshops are not (well some are aren't they), depositories for out of
print etc., but they have drummed up a huge market over the last 20
years by allowing browsing, coffee, display etc, but of course the key
thing for them is the profit. BUT libraries can take leaves out of their
books (sorry about the pun), in where to be situated, how to display, we
should clean our returned books, keep the stock fresh and continuously
re present etc, more comfortable surroundings etc. It is a big debate we
need to engage with, including what is it we should be doing in the next
120 years plus to grow our market share, use our funds more effectively,
and grow the business.

I know there are some super examples, and these new bright libraries
have increased numbers of users, but the overall picture is nothing like
as good, and we should be a bit like Pizza Land or MacDonald's, but ONLY
in ONE respect, i.e. wherever you use the service you should have the
same quality and level of service. How can we achieve that?

f  

-----Original Message-----
From: Chartered Library and Information Professionals
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David McMenemy
Sent: 01 May 2004 13:57
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Press Release from the Laser Foundation - 'Who's in
Charge?'

I know something of the concept, Frances.  Fail to see how that negates
my original point that with a large network of buildings to staff, and a
logistical challenge in getting all services to all of those buildings,
that staffing costs can ever be to the significantly low level mooted.
Of course the gorwing model of reducing the number of qualified staff in
front-line roles is going someway towards that I guess, the impact on
the services as a result is harder to quantify.

Nothing impacts service quality more than no staff to serve you. I'm as
much for virtual services as anyone, but I'm a realist and know that
nothing is as important as the quality and numbers of staff a service
has.

Frances Hendrix <[log in to unmask]> said:

> Ever heard of virtual services?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chartered Library and Information Professionals 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David McMenemy
> Sent: 29 April 2004 11:08
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Press Release from the Laser Foundation - 'Who's in 
> Charge?'
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> I'm a little confused with regards the issue you raise regarding
staff
> expenditure.  Public libraries will always have to spend a
significant
> portion of their budget on staffing, simply because of the network
of
> venues they need to resource.  When I worked for Glasgow Council
we had
> over 30 service points to staff, many of them large libraries.
>
> Unlike the BBC, who can hide staffing costs by farming out
contracts for
> programme making to private companies, public libraries manage and 
> operate their own service points.  Rather than cutting staff
numbers,
> there needs to be an increase in order to open libraries longer.
Indeed
> isn't that one of the points made by Mr Coates - libraries need to
be
> open longer.
>
> Just my opinion.
>
> Cheers
> David
> ---------------------------------------
> David McMenemy
> Lecturer,
> Graduate School of Informatics,
> Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of 
> Strathclyde, Livingstone Tower,
> 26 Richmond Street,
> Glasgow.
> G1 1XH
> U.K.
> Tel: 0141-548-3045
> email: [log in to unmask] www.cis.strath.ac.uk
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chartered Library and Information Professionals 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Andrew Sandeman
> Sent: 29 April 2004 10:26
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Press Release from the Laser Foundation - 'Who's in 
> Charge?'
>
>
> John:
> you are right about Hampshire but this sort of response (in
general, I
> really don't want to personalise this) - makes me despair, because
it
> discourages debate on  the real issue.
>
> Even at 55% (LISU), staffing costs are damagingly high and the
effects
> (yes, there are other factors as well) include LISU 2003 p.4 "Only
9.6%
> of total libraries expenditure was on books in 2001-02."
>
> We SHOULD be concerned that
> a) most of our (Paying) customers still want a good range of books 
> etc.as their top priority
> b) we are NOT spending 90% of our budget on what they want.
>
> There are some good things happening out there, but they need to
deepen
> and spread very
>
> rapidly if libraries are to recover their relevance to most of the 
> general public.
>
> Regards,
> Andrew
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Briggs" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: 28 April 2004 16:52
> Subject: Re: Press Release from the Laser Foundation - 'Who's in 
> Charge?'
>
>
> > Andrew Sandeman wrote:
> > > A pity that a report which makes some important points - 
> > > controversial maybe, but the basic thrust is well supported by 
> > > evidence - should be
> met
> > > with this sort of 'debate'.
> > >
> > > Hopefully, perhaps elsewhere, we can have a more considered 
> > > discussion about how to achieve the STEP CHANGE in
effectiveness
> > > which is so clearly needed.
> > >
> > > For example, it looks as if many authorities spend (roughly)
two
> > > thirds
> of
> > > their budget on staffing,
> > > whereas I understand that the BBC spend approx.20%.
> > >
> >
> > The figures quoted by the report are that Hampshire spends 
> > approximately half of its 'funds' on "staff", which is in line
with
> > the UK as a whole
> (see
> > Appendix 2).
> >
> > John Briggs
> >
>
>
>
> Check planning applications from your office or home 
> www.edinburgh.gov.uk/planning Pay for on-street parking in central 
> Edinburgh from your mobile phone www.edinburgh.gov.uk/mpark More at 
> www.edinburgh.gov.uk/onlineservices
>
*********************************************************************
*
> This Email and files transmitted with it are confidential and are 
> intended for the sole use of the individual or organisation to
whom they
> are addressed. If you have received this Email in error please
notify
> the sender immediately and delete it without using, copying,
storing,
> forwarding or disclosing its contents to any other person. The
Council
> has endeavoured to scan this Email message and attachments for
computer
> viruses and will not be liable for any losses incurred by the
recipient.
>
*********************************************************************
*
>



--