 |
 |
I don't normally join in these discussions, not being involved in the actual running of libraries/information centres, but as a once frequent local library user, the reason I don't go so often now is because there is very little I want to borrow. Most of the stock now seems to consist of 'new' publications, with a lot of the older books having been disposed of. If I want to read the latest bodice-ripper or whatever, I would normally buy it. If I want to read for example one of Henry Williamson's books, or maybe a CP Snow, or even a Jane Austen, I would go to the library - not any more, because they are not there any more. Another reason is because I haven't got the energy to wade through paperbacks not displayed in alpha order by author in the hope of finding something worth reading. The staff explain it is because there is no room for less-borrowed publications, but there seems to be plenty of room for videos, DVD, jigsaws, greetings cards, books for sale, and PCs (which incidentally on a Saturday seem to be very rarely used). Has anybody ever asked the users and potential users what they want from their local library - I've never been asked. -----Original Message----- From: Smith, Simon - A&L [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: 04 May 2004 10:38 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: 'Who's in Charge?' Yes...I have heard of virtual services - very little mention of them in the report though, so has Mr Coates? One of the reasons for fewer visits to libraries is that you can email/telephone in requests and queries and you can renew your books online in the majority of cases. I realise that this doesn't in itself account for all of the reduction in visitor numbers, but a significant percentage of visits that used to be made for this reason now no longer have to be - so aren't recorded in the figures quoted. The article in the Observer will have alerted more people to the report and provoked a greater awareness of the issues, it was quite disappointing and one-sided, but it really does make you realise what has to be done if someone like Will Hutton in a publication such as The Observer (I think I was expecting a bit of support!) seems to be preparing for this precipitous decline. I think that there are societal reasons why libraries are not used as once they were, and whilst that isn't an excuse to keep going and getting smaller every year, it is something that seems to have been completely overlooked. More books are published every year, average prices of books are falling so are more affordable, people like creating their own libraries that are exclusively 'theirs' and, a key point, there is much greater awareness of books, due to the Internet, newspaper and magazine reviews. I'm sure I'm not alone in now being presented with lists of ISBNs that someone wants to check whether we have...greater information to users means increased awareness of just what is out there. It's not exclusively down to how libraries are funded and managed - this is how it has been portrayed. We have library users coming in and discussing the report with us now the Libri report has raised awareness and a level of concern in exactly what's going on: although people are making supportive and non-supportive noises re the report it must be said. Just my own thoughts etc...we should enjoy the spotlight, and make use of it! Regardless of what it said in the paper - the byline : "Public libraries need to be properly managed, by people committed to the idea of public value - or they will die" This interestingly doesn't mention that 'they mainly need people coming through the doors' (hence the need for marketing) but I'm sure we can all agree on the sentiment. Simon (Reading). ps : the article http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1207975,00.html : interesting that it's easy to use Amazon but not your local library catalogue... -----Original Message----- From: Frances Hendrix [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: 01 May 2004 13:06 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Press Release from the Laser Foundation - 'Who's in Charge?' 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. ********************************************************************** r============================ DISCLAIMER ============================= This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) (\"Intended Recipient\") to whom it is addressed. It may contain information, which is privileged and confidential. Accordingly any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message or any of its content by any person other than the Intended Recipient may constitute a breach of civil or criminal law and is strictly prohibited. If you are not the Intended Recipient, please contact the sender as soon as possible. Reed Business Information Ltd. and its subsidiary companies Tel: +44 (0)20 8652 3500 =======================================================================