[Publib] RE: Stealing of periodicals and newspapers

[Backwage at aol.com]

In a message dated 12/29/2008 11:59:16 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
lknieriem at rogersark.org writes:

I can see certain  occasions in which sequestering popular – or frequently 
stolen or mutilated –  materials might be a financial necessity, but it should 
never be a step taken  lightly or vindictively.  Unlike other taxpayer-funded 
services such as  the police, or fire, or utilities, no one is ever required to 
utilize the  library.  We must woo our customers.  As frustrating and 
infuriating  as it is, sometimes simply replacing the materials – even buying extra 
copies  from the start – can be less costly in the long run than insulting and  
punishing the trustworthy majority in order to deter the tiny fraction who 
are  dishonest.


Well, that would be nice, if the costs were not passed on to the customer  
base which we are claiming to serve so well.  And the fact is, when an item  is 
valuable--which is to say, when it is considered valuable by staff--it is  
guarded carefully.  Value Line.  Does anybody who gets that  publication leave it 
out on a shelf?  
 
Interesting that it would be considered vindictive to preserve materials  for 
use.  Consider this:  the average person doesn't saunter into a  public 
library.  It takes a decision, and a decision that includes the  exclusion of 
alternate places and pastimes.  You've got to get up and  go.  Unless of course you 
are a member of that class of folk who simply  live at libraries, and for 
whom the modern library appears to have given itself  over--I mean the wandering 
homeless.  Otherwise, us working folk have to  dress, fire up the car and head 
out.  There has to be a good reason to  go.  
 
If you go to a shop and the advertised merchandise isn't there, it is  
somebody's fault.  Whose fault is it when the library doesn't have the  goods?  
Imagine if you went into a restaurant and the waiter told you that  all the wine 
had been stolen, but that they had a nice selection of bottled  water on hand.  
The library is an archive.  It is not merely a fun  place for the 
entertainment of the public.  Maybe to some librarians, but  not to me, or to most 
intelligent folk.  It is a repository of news,  information, literature, film and 
other things necessary for the fulfillment of  civilized life.  But then, isn't 
this just the old argument, one that has  been put down by the post-literate 
generation of librarians?  Isn't it good  enough to offer something bright and 
shiny instead of something dull and  deep?  
 
In my local library, they do not have a complete collection of  Shakespeare's 
plays.  A few will suffice.  You can get the others at  the Central Library 
downtown, if they haven't been checked out.  Likewise  that magazine you 
wanted.  It will take a few days.  It is nobody's  fault.  
 
In my local library, they don't have Advanced Placement materials in the  
sciences.  They get stolen.  Nobody can figure it out.  Nobody  tracks down the 
last person to use them.  You should just go buy your  own.  Too poor?  Save 
your pennies.
 
[Note:  In my library, at the big downtown branch, they sure as heck  have 
all the important auto repair manuals.  Always.  Why?  Maybe  mechanics will 
wring your neck if you don't have them?  Note to self:   File this away as a 
strategy.]
 
A common theme for the modern public library:  Hey, stuff  happens.  We can't 
be blamed; we can't afford replacements; we've got more  important things to 
do.  Like what?
 
M. McGrorty
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, 
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. 
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webjunction.org/wjlists/publib/attachments/20081229/1ca00a53/attachment.htm