"Gutting America's Local Libraries"

[Jennifer Abrams]

Andrew Mutch wrote:  

> I don't think that public libraries have to "fear" the ELL and it's
43
> million titles.  I think those who will benefit most from such a
catalog
> would be the "power users" like myself who are looking for obscure
> titles that normally would take searching multiple catalogs and
college
> students, who would be able to access titles that normally wouldn't
be
> found in a public library catalog.  But, I think that the majority of
> users will be overwhelmed by a "global" catalog unless it can be
> initially limited to local holdings.
> 

I've spent many years in public libraries, and I think you
underestimate the needs of our users ... at least as I knew them.  They
are every bit as sophisticated as you and I ... and need and deserve
access to just as many resources.  Why, some of the finest research
libraries in the world are public libraries.


> The point that Walt made rather persuasively is that the funding
> required to create the ELL would be quite substantial and would be at
> the expense of many library services.

"Persuasively?"  Not in my book.  Why, if we were to follow Walt's
logic here, we would have to dismantle all of those fine library
consortia like OhioLink, Illinet, and many others, now including the
Library of California (motto:  one library, eight thousand doors).  
These consortia are designed to provide their patrons with easy access
to millions of volumes outside the local collection --- very much like
smaller scale versions of Earth's Largest Library, without the nice
Amazon catalog.   Now, according to Walt's way of thinking, these
consortia should not be allowed to exist because 1.  by providing
patrons with easy and convenient access to millions of titles outside
the local collections, they are, in fact, helping to "gut America's
Local Libraries" and 2. the fact that they are moving all those books
around must be bankrupting the local library budgets (remember Walt
said it would cost $9 per loan).  

Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. All of the evidence
I've seen suggests that patrons love these systems and use them heavily
wherever they are available  ... proving that local collections are
indeed not adequate to meet the broad range of patron needs, and that
people do prefer to choose from a very large selection of books when
they are given the chance.  Nor is moving all those books around
bankrupting libraries.  The consortia have found very inexpensive ways
to move books, and costs are either covered by modest contributions
from the libraries themselves and from other local and state funding. 

So if I were designing Earth's Largest Library, I would still use a
single catalog and circ system, as Coffman proposes (and I don't care
what Crawford says, I think the Amazon model beats our OPACs hands
down, and so do most of my friends) ... then I would tailor the local
collection to handle 80% of the demand (as Walt suggests), then I would
pull the next 15% from the local or state-wide consortia which could
deliver it quickly and inexpensively, and finally, I would turn to the
full collection of the ELL to handle the remaining 5% of patron demand
using traditional (and slower and more expensive) ILL channels.  

So now when a patron came to the catalog looking for books on
succulents, she would enter the search into a catalog that looked a lot
like Amazon.  First, she would get a list of all the succulent books at
her local library. If she did not find what she wanted there, she could
hit a key (or scroll down the screen) and see a list of all the titles
on succulents available for quick delivery through the consortia, and
finally, she could scroll further (or hit another key) and find a list
of all the succulent books in the ELL, arranged by subject, region, or
whatever made sense.   Of course, if she came to the catalog with an
obscure title like "The Care and Feeding of Succulents" by Henry Wade,
1935 the catalog would search for it throughout the system, starting
with the local collection and progressing on to the consortia, and
finally on to the full catalog, until it had located the item. 

Now that doesn't sound like such an "evil" plan does it?  And I guess
that brings me to the thing the bothered the most about Walt's
critique.  So much of it was just plain mean-spirited and nasty.   he
repeatedly calls the idea "dumb" and worse, he claims somebody had to
almost twist his arm behind his back to get him write about it at all,
and when he did, it was with the intention of "driving a stake through
its heart" because nobody else seemed to want to do it. 

Now, no matter what you think of the ELL idea, the fact of the matter
is that it has generated more energetic and thoughtful postings and
discussions on this list (and yes, I include Walt's piece as well) and
many others than any other piece I have seen in years.  People are
talking about ILL and how to do it better, about catalogs and what
should be in them, about OPACs and circ systems and how they could be
improved, about collection development and how it could best be done,
and about libraries, and what they are, the purpose they serve, and how
they can best be run.  No matter what the answer ends up being ... I
see that discussion as a good thing .... a very good thing ... and for
the life of me, I can't imagine why anyone would want to drive a stake
through the heart of it.  


===
Jennifer Abrams
public librarian (retired)
St. George, UT
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com