Photograph by Elizabeth Henderson
Plans by MCPL Director Cindy Gray, left, to spend more than $500,000 renovating the library's second floor came under fire from the public and some library board members at a recent board work session. Board President Stephen Moberly is seated at the right.
Planned renovation of the Monroe County Public Library's second floor drew criticism at the July 11 Board of Trustees work session attended by about 40 citizens.
The renovations, estimated to cost more than $500,000, was pushed to the top of the agenda by board member Randy Paul.
The plan would include relocating the audio visual department to the second floor, installing new furniture and carpets, improving the Kirkwood entrance, replacing the circulation desk with an ergonomic one and incorporating self-checkouts in more user-friendly ways.
Steve Backs, head of the adult services department, which merged with AV in 2001, cited improved patron service as the key reason for the move.
According to Backs, the merger, combined with the loss of two full-time staff positions and staff responsibility for covering three service desks, is one reason for the move. Relocation would allow adult services to downsize to two service desks.
"The pressure that I've felt the last couple of years because we've been doing these three desks has really driven me to say, 'Let's bring them up here,'" Backs said.
However, he said he does not view the AV relocation as the only way to improve patron service.
"I'm not emotionally attached to bringing AV upstairs," he said. "Give me two more staff members, and do what you want."
Resident concerns dominated the meeting and ranged from decreased quality of service, inefficient use of taxpayer money and demands that the plan be reconsidered.
One long-time patron urged the board to hold off.
"I just think we should rethink what we're doing because I'm not sure that it's the best thing for the library," she said.
Thom Gillespie, professor of interactive storytelling and game design at IU, said the plan fails to serve the community.
"The way I view this thing is the library board is proposing to move media 100 feet for $500,000," he said. "I think this makes absolutely no sense for a public library. Its real position should be to provide new access, new information and new opportunities to the community."
County Council member Vic Kelson, who said he was not representing the council at the meeting, also voiced concerns.
"As a taxpayer and as a citizen, when I see somebody spending $600,000, I want to see more service for the community," he said. "I don't want to see new floor plans and that sort of thing. I think things that bring more materials to more people and more places is a priority that as a citizen I would like to see."
Barbara Swinson, circulation department manager, maintained that while she didn't agree with the plan in its entirety, she thinks the renovations would allow staffers to better serve the increasing number of patrons with the same level of funding.
Concerns about the library's transparency when meeting with the County Council to request funding for the renovations were also raised.
There were differing views regarding the exact priorities that the board disclosed to the council.
According to Paul, as well as a May 2007 document that contained a prioritized listing of projects, the primary projects listed were the annual replacement and purchase of equipment for Community Access Television Services (CATS), completion of the children's department at the Ellettsville branch, the purchase of a bookmobile and the establishment of a new branch library.
Renovations for the first, second and third floors of the downtown library were listed as secondary considerations.
Kelson said that when he saw footage on CATS of the library board meeting where the plans for renovation were discussed, "It kind of caught me unawares because I really thought the Ellettsville children's department was a very high priority."
Library Director Gray responded: "We never, in my mind, misrepresented what we were calling our attention to with the County Council. The second floor renovations were never part of the priority process because we felt like it was already in the works."
Paul urged the board to reconsider the proposed plan's prudence.
"If we move forward, we are turning our backs on the County Council, and this is a classic bait and switch," he said. "We walk in and say, 'Give us money,' they say 'Okay,' when, frankly, they were clear to us that they were not going to support this kind of renovation."
Paul expressed concern that the board would lose the public's trust if the renovations take place and worried that it would be difficult to get future funding from the County Council.
Regarding the availability of funds, Kelson acknowledged, "It is difficult to come up with tax money for additional capital projects right now. And I think it's going to continue to be, so we need to use those monies wisely as a community."
Many board members favored reconsidering the plan to renovate the second floor.
Board member Janice Stockton, though she is worried about the current situation, believes that everyone is doing their best.
"I really do have some major concerns, and I'm worried about what's going on," she said. "But I think everyone, the people on this board and the staff, are trying. Their hearts are in the right place."
Fred Risinger, another board member, conceded, "Maybe moving AV upstairs is something that we will have to think about for a future time."
Board Vice President Linda Hunt said the carpeting should still be replaced and that she felt moving the AV department to the second floor would be an improvement.
Hunt wants to reduce the scope of the renovations and allow contractors to rebid on the project.
"I don't think that we can be intimidated and postpone things like the renovation because we're worried about what's going to happen in the future," she said. "I think part of the reason why we have the success in this library that we do is because the place looks good. And I just don't want it to decline."
Elizabeth Henderson can be reached at ehenderson@slc.edu.
Comments
Let the public have a voice
Please keep in mind, this is about spending priorities and public input. MCPL needs to replace its bookmobile, MCPL needs to prioritize the construction of a children's room at Ellettsville, MCPL needs to think about another branch (or two). Yes, we also need new carpet on the second floor. But we don't need massive cosmetic changes to the second floor like those currently being proposed.
Currently, AV is cramped because the atrium book sale was eliminated and replaced with a bookstore. The book sale was a community event, a library version of the farmer's market. It was also run solely by volunteers. The creation of permanent bookstore has led to a cramped AV area and has necessitated the creation of a paid position. Prices in the bookstore were raised over 500% compared to atrium book sale prices, yet the bookstore is barely earning what the book sale did when books were 25 cents a piece--especially when you factor in overhead and a paid bookstore position.
In addition, the redesign of the second floor was director-motivated. It is a top-down decision. Staff were told to get on board. Plain and simple. Of course staff provided input on how to make a potential redesign work, but don't confuse their input on how to make the redesign work without endorsement of the redesign.
MCPL is also gearing up for the first strategic planning process. This will include numerous forums that will allow the public to help shape a vision of the library. Instead of moving forward with one person's vision for the library, let's allow the strategic planning process to move forward, allow the public to provide input, and come up with a vision that is based on democratic consensus. It is, after all, the Monroe County PUBLIC Library.
As to the points made by "20plus-year" below: 1) Regarding RA - it is very difficult to do RA at a busy reference desk (and the professional literature supports this assertion), and the service has suffered as a result of the elimination of the fiction desk. Ask any patron who used to take advantage of that desk, and they'll tell you the same thing. Also, we did lose one RA librarian to early retirement. 2) Nobody said staff with AV expertise would "disappear"; however, there will no longer be a designated service point to serve AV patrons. AV patrons will have to queue up with patrons at the reference desk, and it is not a stretch by any imagination to realize that the quality of service patrons have become used to both at the AV desk and the reference desk will diminish with the consolidation of those two desks. 3) Yes, we will have more computers. One more computer to be exact, and there will no longer be a public computing center. 4) Books are being aggressively weeded from the collection in anticipation of the move. 12,892 items were discarded in 2005. In 2006, 50,830 items were discarded. Those are real numbers, and they seem to indicate that more books are being weeded from the collection. The trend has continued into 2007. 5) There is no reason to expand the bookstore. Plain and simple. In fact, let's move it back into the atrium, give the space back to AV, and spend the money that would go into moving AV elsewhere (like a new bookmobile, or a branch on the south and/or west side, or a children's room at Ellettsville, i.e., truly necessary projects). 6) As patrons escape the "crowded" atmosphere of the PCC, they'll find a new "crowded" atmosphere on the second floor as study space is eliminated and the AV department is crammed onto the second floor. Also, at least there is a consultant who knows computers in the PCC from time to time.
Finally, staff are paid to come up with potential solutions. When those suggestions turn out to be unpopular, then you let go. You don't justify a $550,000 project on the fact that staff spent time working on it. You justify it on the soundness of the plan. The bids for this project came in $100,000 over bid. As such, administration is pulling "renovative blocks" out of this proverbial Jenga project, and the tower is ready to fall. Let's do the prudent thing, scrap this plan, and explain why to the public and the County Council. Then, with an open ear, an open mind, and willingness to engage in a meaningfull dialog with staff and the public, let's let the strategic plan move forward, allow the public to provide input, and build a library on a vision with a strong, democratic foundation.
so much noise, very few facts
As a long-time employee of MCPL and as a person who knows a lot about the history, details and overall rationale for the proposed renovation at the Main library, I feel that I must set the record straight on several points.
The process has been open and public from the beginning....the County Council has been aware ( or should have been if they had done their homework) that the proposed renovation of the Adult Services areas has been the #1 priority for almost 2 years. When the library went before the CC last year to request Library Capital Project Fund revenue, MCPL was told by the CC that they needed to spend the remaining Building Corp funds before any increase in funding would be considered. At that time that money was earmarked for the MUCH-NEEDED renovations at the Main library and MCPL proceeded with planning for that project. After all, the Ellettsville branch received a major renovation only 2 years ago. The current LCPF request approved by the CC is earmarked for those other projects. Mr Paul's characterization of this as "Bait and Switch" in my opinion is absurd.
I have a copy of the May 2007 letter cited in your article. It clearly states that: "...the remaining Building Corporation Funds are being spent with the installation of a new automation system (2006) and the allocation of funds to reorganize and begin carpet replacement on the second floor of the Main Library (2007)". This "...allocation of funds to reorganize..." is the 2nd floor renovation. Further down the text of the letter is the list of priorities referred to by Mr. Paul. Those priorities are listed secondarily, after the 2nd floor renovation and carpet replacement.
So many of the comments by Mr. Paul and certain members of the public have been inaccurate that I am not sure where to begin in correcting them .....
Here are a few examples:
Staff that have expertise in Reader's Advisory disappeared when the Fiction Desk went away....false...they still work here and are still doing RA.
Staff that have expertise in Audio Visual will disappear if that collection is moved upstairs...false...they will continue to provide that service.
Computers are going away to make room for the renovation...false...we will have more computers after the renovation.
Books are being tossed to make room for the renovation...false...Mr Paul and all of the other Board members have been made aware of the actual numbers. Mr Paul claimed at the meeting that he had "numbers". There is only one set of numbers on size of collections and shelving space...the numbers that have been developed by Adult Services staff through many hours of hard work.
Expanding the bookstore will result in the collection being decimated to stock those shelves...unbelievable. None of the professional librarians would stand for this and anyway it is unnecessary. The bookstore gets more than enough donations from the public to keep the shelves stocked for years to come. The normal weeding process that takes place at MCPL as it does in all libraries provides more than enough interesting items to support the bookstore. This is the same process that prevailed for many years when the Bookstore was a once a week Tuesday booksale.
There are comments in the main article about $500,000 or $600,000 being spent just to move Audio Visual. This is obviously untrue. The library's financial officer in response to a question from the Board made it clear that almost a third of the money is for carpet replacement. Other significant portions of the approximately $500,000 are for other parts of the project. This project is NOT just about moving Audio Visual.
A couple of points about the Audio Visual collections and the Public Computing Center. These are the 2 areas that will be most obviously affected by the renovation....
The Public Computing Center does not function well as it is. There is often no staff in that room to help people, so that they have to leave all of their belongings or carry them out to the Reference Desk to ask for help. Many patrons dislike the crowded atmosphere of that room. The plans for the proposed renovation will bring all of the computers to locations near service desks. In the judgement of the professional staff at MCPL, this is the correct thing to do.
The Audio Visual collection as it is currently housed is out of space. There are always materials that are shown in the catalog as "In" that are not easily available to patrons because they cannot be shelved. The service desk is isolated from the rest of the library and cannot be easily supported when it gets busy. The new configuration will provide more than enough space to shelve all "In" materials and will have 3 to 4 staff nearby to assist patrons instead of 1. In the judgment of the professional staff at MCPL, this is the correct thing to do.
The bottom line on all of this....the Director, Associate Director, Department Supervisors and Adult Services staff have used their best judgment to identify the problems with the current arrangement of materials and service desks and have invested 100s of hours to come up with solutions for them. These solutions, in the judgment of the professional staff at MCPL, will best serve the patrons and make the most efficient use of staff and library resources. This is what they are paid to do. The Library Board needs to make their judgment based on actual facts, not exaggerations, distortions and disinformation. The Library Board needs to support the staff who have sought and come up with real solutions to real problems.
The 2nd floor renovation
As a member of the Board of Trustees, I know the board worked very hard to look at all the facts presented, talked with many of the people involved in the planning of this project, and did our best with the information available.
I know the "20 year employee " who wrote these comments, and he is a very dedicated employee at MCPL. However, often times the "facts" presented by one side of this issue, were discredited by the other side. As is often the case, true facts are hard to come by, and thus you are left with only your good judgement to guide you on what is best for the organization.
In the end, the vote was not even close (7-0) to reject this project. That vote alone should say something about the process.
However, the greatest victory was the democratic process that was demonstrated during the meeting Wednesday (7-18-07.) The public turned out in large numbers, and voiced their concerns and opinions. The issue was obviously important to people, and
I think their wishes were heard. At the end of the day, that's not a bad result.
We now have the 2nd floor move decided and behind us. It is now time to move forward together to make the library the best it can be. We have the budget and the strategic planning process to focus on, and to remind us that we are all better off when we work together for the common good of the library.
Randy G. Paul
Trustee
MCPL
"In the end, the vote was
"In the end, the vote was not even close (7-0) to reject this project. That vote alone should say something about the process."
Randy, with all due respect, that vote reflects the board's unanimous acceptance that you've politicized this process to the point that the 2nd floor renovations can't happen now. That not the same as agreeing with you that they're a fundamentally bad idea.