Thumbs Down for the Library?
I was disappointed to see that the News-Times editorial page gave a "thumbs down" to the Danbury Library Board's recommendation of the library's proposed new temporary schedule in today's paper. If they based that opinion on the article that was published last Friday -- and no one on the editorial staff spoke to me directly -- then it's based on some incorrect and incomplete information.
First, the Library Board did not create the new schedule but approved it before it could be submitted to the Mayor. (By the way, Mayor Boughton is meeting with Library Board President Ned Moore and me tomorrow [Wednesday] morning.) The schedule was drawn up with great reluctance by the library's Management Team, which consists of all of the library's department managers -- or at least the ones we have now.
And that's one of the major problems here. In spite of the fact that we have three departments without managers now -- the AV Coordinator position has been vacant since June 2007, the Automation Coordinator since February 2008, and the Junior Department Head since December 2008 -- and will have a fourth one as of July 1 when the Lending Services manager retires, not to mention more than 80 vacant part-time hours, until now we have knocked ourselves out to continue to provide the full scope of library services to our public. But we're stretched so thin that if someone is sick or actually dares to consider using some vacation time before it's lost, we're left in the untenable position of having one person staff the busy Junior Department on a weekend day, or scrambling around to find someone to cover the Ask Me Desk, or asking full-time managers to manage two departments instead of one.
I've learned in nearly 33 years as a library director that library workers will do almost anything to insure that library service is maintained at the proper level that library users expect and deserve, even under the most trying circumstances. But we've clearly and quite unfortunately reached that point at which we can no longer maintain that level of service.
So the proposed schedule and cuts in some programs reluctantly acknowledge that our staffing levels are far short of normal while our use continues to be above normal. Even with the Friday closings since last September, our total circulation is higher than it was at this point last year when we were still open for our normal 7-day schedule. We're one of the few city departments that's seen an increase in use, rather than a decrease, as a result of the troubled economy. Something had to give, and it was hours and services. We simply cannot continue as we have since last October without making changes.
No one, not library staff members or Library Board members, wants to implement these changes. It goes completely against why we're here: to serve the public to the best of our abilities and resources. But when those abilities and resources are stretched to the breaking point, changes must be made.
The proposed schedule means a net loss of only 9 public service hours, not the 20 that were reported in last Friday's News-Times article. By closing Tuesday and Thursday nights at 5:00, and by opening late on Monday and Wednesday at 1:00, that means 12 fewer hours. Add the 4 from a 1:00 closing on Saturday, and the total is 16 hours. However, since the library will be adding 7 hours by reopening on Friday, the net loss is 9 hours. Even that loss hurts and was not something we wanted to do, especially when our city's residents are using and need our services more than ever. I totally agree with the newspaper's statement that "The trimming of hours is particularly troubling because in times of recession, the public turns to libraries even more for services." But can they offer a suggestion about what happens when the library staff can no longer offer those services at the same level?
This is a temporary schedule. To state it simply, when we can be fully staffed again, we'll return to our normal schedule -- and be more excited than anyone to reinstate it.
So maybe with all of the facts, the News-Times editors might have been more supportive of this terribly hard decision. I can only hope so, and we ask for your support. And together we can all hope even more that the situation will be resolved to everyone's satisfaction in the not-too-distant future.
