Mark,
You're right that the public is their own arbiter of culture, and they
can close libraries if they want to. But as I've said a few times, I
think we have to be real careful about which "users" we base our
decisions on. In academic libraries, is it the freshmen or the seniors
or grad students we want them to grow into?
I think we are in *some* position to tell the taxpayers what they need.
In particular, I hope Thomas Mann, at LC, is having some success
convincing members of Congress that cataloging is more important than
Librarian of Congress James Billington or Deanna Marcum think. He might
be able to do that indirectly, via constituents who are sympathetic to
his work. I notice that recently, Congress declined to fund digitization
projects as fully as Billington wanted, and maybe that could have
something to do with Mann's work. Or maybe it was just stinginess on the
part of Congress. But that's one way to state what the debate in
libraries is now: digitization vs. cataloging.
I'm not saying there can't be a "both/and" there. There should be. We
need both. But with limited resources, digitization vs. cataloging is
where the battle lines for funding seem to be shaping up in many cases.
As for library closings, this gives me an opportunity to express my
opinion about one recent case. Probably most people will agree with me
here, but it's worth emphasizing. It relates to the man who went to
court in Michigan, demanding to get a library card in a neighboring
community's library because his community had decided to close its own.
I don't know if the case has been resolved, but I really believe that's
where we have to "draw the line." This is not to say I don't feel sorry
for the guy losing his library access. Everybody should have public
library access. But if we send the message that if people decide they
don't want to fund a library in one place, we'll give them access
somewhere else, we're committing suicide as a profession. And we're not
doing the public a favor, either.
Unfortunately, that small medical library (in a hospital) doesn't have
"an ILS worth a darn," and apparently they don't think they can afford
one. But the person I spoke to said she thought if their present
electronic data was lost somehow, they could recreate it using the
cards. So I think it's worth it for them to keep those cards. But I'm
sure you're right that a lot of libraries keep cards when they don't
need to.
--Ted Gemberling
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Andrews, Mark J.
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 8:27 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] The Situation We're In (was Re: [NGC4LIB]
Authority maintenance )
Ted,
Unless LibraryLand intends to become the arbiters of culture again (our
version of "in loco parentis"), we are in no position to tell people -
the taxpayers - what they "need." The best we can do is remind people
what libraries offer that no one else does. Come to think of it, that'd
be a fair use of the entirety of ALA's budget for a year. Or more.
"Need" didn't prevent a county public library system in Oregon from
closing due to lack of a Federal logging subsidy in lieu of local
property taxes in the last month. Those good folks did not want a
library. They did not want to pay for it. The Federal bucks dried up
and there you are.
We probably disagree less than it appears on needs vs. wants.
As for a tangible inventory of library holdings, raise your hand if you
work in or know of a library that still keeps a shelf list, though it
may not be up-to-date. I did, years ago. I still hear stories of
libraries with staff lounges and break rooms (hopefully not the
restrooms) where the shelf list sits because people are afraid to scrap
it. If that medical library has an ILS worth a darn, they can get a
heavy-duty printer, some tractor feed 3 x 5 card stock, and print
themselves a catalog again, or a shelf list. Now there's a dirty
library secret - how many libraries secretly maintain a card catalog or
a shelf list? Nicholson Baker will be pleased.
Mark Andrews
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries on behalf of Ted P
Gemberling
Sent: Thu 5/31/2007 11:37 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] The Situation We're In (was Re: [NGC4LIB]
Authority maintenance)
Mark Andrews wrote:
"The kind of feedback Burke provides is PRICELESS and should be
cultivated, encouraged, and incorporated into our thinking, planning and
acting. Remember, people don't have libraries and librarians because
they NEED them. They have libraries and librarians because they WANT
them. When the "want" stops we go away. What's true for our vendors
is, I'm afraid, also true of us."
Well, they both need them and want them. They may not think they want
them for awhile and then realize they need them. I just talked to a
coworker yesterday about a small medical library she worked in. Her
former boss has been advised to get rid of their old card catalog,
because card catalogs are passé. But my coworker worries that that is
actually the only permanent record they have of their resources. They
have an in-house electronic system that is questionable for its
reliability, maintained by a couple of technicians who could leave any
day, and she worries that if they did or lost interest in maintaining
it, the electronic data could be lost. I agreed with her that it's
better to err on the side of caution. So I think "need" somewhat takes
precedence over "want." "Want" is pretty ephemeral, and "need" is deeper
and longer lasting.
-- Ted Gemberling
Received on Fri Jun 01 2007 - 12:48:14 EDT