Well, a few days ago the title of my blog post was a bit off.
I said "Final skirmish at hand in Salem Library 'Battle of the Books.'" But at last night's City Council meeting, a motion proposed by Councilor Chris Hoy passed unanimously.
It puts the so-called Big Weed book removal effort on hold until the end of June, most likely. Here's how the leader of the Big Weed opposition, Jim Scheppke, put it in an email he sent out today.
Dear Library Supporters:
On his Save Our Books at Salem Public Library Facebook page, Scheppke also shared a short video of remarks Hoy made at the council meeting. This was the description of the video:
Thanks to Councilor Chris Hoy for his leadership last night to put off resumption of the Big Weed for a least a couple of months. We hope he will continue to excercise leadership to reach a compromise that would bring together what he sees as the "two visions" for the future of the library.
One vision involves mass book removal, as was happening last fall, to create what library management and the Library Advisory Board see as a "dynamic" popular materials library.
Our vision is not the opposite of that, despite how it has been mischaracterized.
We want a dynamic popular materials library too, but we also want what is stated in the Collection Development Policy: "a broad choice of materials to meet informational, educational, cultural, and recreational needs." This cannot be achieved if the Big Weed resumes.
Why can't both "visions" be brought together? Maybe Councilor Hoy can work on that.
Troy Brynelson wrote a Salem Reporter story, scooping the Statesman Journal, which hasn't so far. Check out "Salem library review to return to Salem City Council this summer." Excerpts:
A dispute over Salem Public Library’s review of some of its books, which some feared would lead to a purge, could be resolved this summer.
Salem City Council on Monday directed library staff to continue only removing adult non-fiction titles that are in poor condition, retaining the rest, until at least June. Library staff will start work on a new report in May showing how the staff decide to keep, mend or discard books.
The new report would then go before the citizen-led Library Advisory Board and back to Salem City Council.
...After the motion passed, Jim Scheppke, a former director of the State Library of Oregon and a vocal opponent of the review, told Salem Reporter the motion was a “partial victory” because the review remains paused.
Three members of the advisory board, however, said they did not understand why the issue is going back to the board. In February, the board voted unanimously to recommend staff resume the review.
“We already made a recommendation,” said Lois Stark, board member. “Now they’re asking us to make another recommendation and I don’t understand.”
Hmmmm. Likely I'll have more to say about Stark's comment in another post.
Briefly, the Library Advisory Board, like almost all volunteer boards, appears to have been captured by full-time staff. Meaning, the LAB isn't capable of thinking independently, because they're used to doing the bidding of library staff.
I realize this might sound overly critical, but it's how I see the situation.
The same thing tends to happen with the City Council, a volunteer "board" dependent on City of Salem staff. Staff typically want to keep on doing what they've been doing, because they're comfortable doing it.
Yet obviously there is much more general knowledge and expertise among the citizenry in our city of about 170,000, than there is in City of Salem staff.
So while it makes sense for volunteer boards to lean on staff for direction in many cases, the Library Advisory Board should keep an open mind when well-informed citizens present views that differ from those of staff.
OK, I wasn't all that brief. I do have more to say on this subject, though. Another time...
Empty shelves at Salem Public Library after book removals
Brian, You're absolutely right: you do sound overly critical.
You obviously have not done any investigation into this by actually talking with someone on the Library Advisory Board or the city librarian, relying on the lead of others whose opinions you spread even further by including them in "your" opinion piece. One has to wonder if you are "capable of independent thinking" or just regurgitating what others write with an added dose of snark.
The LAB recommendation was a unanimous decision to support the educated, trained, and experienced staff who were hired to make the library, which they care deeply about, a viable, active, current and successful community resource. Just because they have a different opinion than you does not mean that they are "captured" and "doing the bidding of library staff".
These are not just "overly critical" comments, but totally unfair! You do not know these people or what they have done to prepare for their voluntary commitments. You sat next to Lois Stark during a lunch the other day and never said one word to her. You could have asked her about what research she has done on this issue: her discussions with Jim Scheppke, meetings with the head librarian, listening to librarians from other libraries, the hours and hours of listening to public comments at LAB meetings and City Council meetings (yes, she was at the last 2 CC meetings to hear any discussion that might come up), online research, requests for statistics and information from staff, and going out of her way to visit other libraries in the country when the opportunities have arisen in order to learn how they do the necessary work of weeding books.
I realize you are not a reporter, but a self-proclaimed snarky blogger, and as such, you can make whatever uninformed negative and critical comments you feel like. Just know that you are being totally unfair to concerned and involved citizens who, like you and others, care deeply about the library - and books. So much so, that they step forward to be on library boards - and other boards and committees and councils - which you denigrate with a very broad stroke, spending countless hours fulfilling their volunteer responsibilities which they, at least in some cases, take very seriously.
How about this rewording of one of your last sentences:
Citizens (and bloggers) should keep an open mind when the well-informed Library Advisory Board presents views that differ from those of certain individuals.
Posted by: Dave MacMillan | April 25, 2019 at 03:53 PM
It would seem that replacing older books with newer books would be a good idea but according to Neil Gaiman, a well respected writer whose opinion I find credible, 90% of new books are crap. If the library brings in so many more new books that they are unable to continue to offer quality, then overall demand will gradually decline. Newer books may be appealing for the short term, but most will quickly become irrelevant - unlike many older books that have become a part of America's literary history. They may not be checked out often, but they are still important. Many of the newer books are published merely for their profit potential. In the same way that quality in music and movies have been compromised by a corporate publishing and distribution system, a books success is judged by the numbers and not the content. Nobody means to demean library workers but the refusal to review such an important decision would be irresponsible. Council has rightfully called for more information, including more specific data about books that were removed and those slated for removal. We should reserve judgement while considering what we feel is best for our library. Will we be compromising the quality of the collection by abandoning important but less used materials. I certainly think so.
Posted by: Kurt | April 25, 2019 at 06:21 PM