Peter Bromberg. Just a simple librarian trying to make it in this crazy world.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Monday, May 16, 2011
QandANJ: Brief Update on NJLA Reference Section Meeting of May 13th
On Friday, May 13th, approximately 60 people turned out at the Princeton Public Library to participate in the NJLA Reference Section meeting convened to discuss the future of QandANJ. Many people drove lotsa miles to be there, and represented all types of libraries and library organizations; publics, academics, association, consortia. It was wonderful to hear so many independent voices from all over the state speak overwhelmingly and passionately in support of keeping QandANJ alive.
The two big pieces of news:
If there was a recurring theme of the day I'd say it was transparency. A good part of the afternoon was spent in small group discussions aimed, ostensibly, at providing guidance for the as-yet-unnamed Task Force. During report-backs from the groups the issue of transparency came up repeatedly. Whatever happens to QandANJ -- or any other shared service -- in the future, we want to be part of an informed discussion and offer input into how our limited shared resources are used.
Again, progress was made on Friday. But there is also a lot of work ahead. The as-yet-unnamed Task Force will have its work cut out for it, and a fairly short timeline in which to operate. The clock is ticking. Stay tuned... (or follow along on Facebook.)
Note added 5/16, 10:45 AM: A HUGE if belated public thank you to Michael Maziekien, NJLA Reference Section Chair, and the NJLA Reference Section for calling this meeting in spite of pushbacks from those who thought an open discussion was either unnecessary or otherwise politically problematic. I am greatly appreciative of Michael's leadership, sense of professional responsibility, and the amazing integrity and fairness he has displayed throughout this process.
The two big pieces of news:
- LibraryLinkNJ Executive Director Cheryl O'Connor announced that her Board had voted unanimously to accept an extra $50,000 from the State Library and continue to run QandANJ through early September. A big thanks to LibraryLinkNJ Board members and Cheryl O'Connor!
- The NJLA Executive Board will appoint a Task Force to chart out a path forward for QandANJ
If there was a recurring theme of the day I'd say it was transparency. A good part of the afternoon was spent in small group discussions aimed, ostensibly, at providing guidance for the as-yet-unnamed Task Force. During report-backs from the groups the issue of transparency came up repeatedly. Whatever happens to QandANJ -- or any other shared service -- in the future, we want to be part of an informed discussion and offer input into how our limited shared resources are used.
Again, progress was made on Friday. But there is also a lot of work ahead. The as-yet-unnamed Task Force will have its work cut out for it, and a fairly short timeline in which to operate. The clock is ticking. Stay tuned... (or follow along on Facebook.)
Note added 5/16, 10:45 AM: A HUGE if belated public thank you to Michael Maziekien, NJLA Reference Section Chair, and the NJLA Reference Section for calling this meeting in spite of pushbacks from those who thought an open discussion was either unnecessary or otherwise politically problematic. I am greatly appreciative of Michael's leadership, sense of professional responsibility, and the amazing integrity and fairness he has displayed throughout this process.
See Also:
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Workplace Leadership and Learning
Workplace Learning & Leadership: A Handbook for Library and Nonprofit Trainers
By Lori Reed and Paul Signorelli
Congratulations to my good friends Lori Reed and Paul Signorelli on the publication of their new book: Workplace Learning & Leadership: A Handbook for Library and Nonprofit Trainers, published by ALA Editions.
I am honored to have been interviewed for the book, and humbled to be in the company of the other distinguished interviewees including:
- Helene Blowers, Director of Digital Strategy, Columbus Metropolitan Library
- Char Booth, Instruction Services Manager & E-Learning Librarian, Claremont Colleges Library
- Maurice Coleman, Technical Trainer, Harford County Library
- Janet Hildebrand, Library Human Resources Manager, Contra Costa County Library
- Jason Puckett, Communication Librarian at Georgia State University Library
- Sandra Smith, Learning and Development Manager at Denver Public Library
- Jay Turner, Director of Continuing Education for the Georgia Public Library Service
- Catherine Vaughn, Continuing Education Coordinator, Lee County Library System
- Pat Wagner, Pattern Research, Inc, Denver, CO
- Louise Whitaker, Coordinator Training & Staff Development, Pioneer Library System
I've read through the book twice, and I'm sure I'll be going back to it again and again. The book is a must have for anyone doing training and staff development. But at heart I think the book is a primer on leadership, which happens to overlay neatly with the skills and mindset required to be an effective teacher/facilitator. Strategic thinking, listening, big-picture thinking, partnering, engaging and empowering others-- these are the themes that emerge and re-emerge in conversations throughout the book. I highly recommend it!
Wednesday, May 04, 2011
Reprieve for QandANJ: A response to Library Journal
Note added 5/5: AL Direct gets it right.
I appreciate that LJ has chosen to cover the story of Norma Blake's unilateral decision to defund QandANJ, and her more recent decision --in response to a great outcry -- to temporarily extend funding. However, I think the LJ article largely fails to convey the level of anger and protest going on in our state library community. Yes, many are angry about the possibility of losing QandANJ. But more importantly, we are angry about the way the decision was made; without input, consultation, or sound basis. The article reports Norma Blake's position and highly disputed "facts" at length, but without balancing them very well with opposing opinions or fact-checking.
I encourage everyone to look at the original reasons given for cutting QandANJ in the April 4th notice (which LJ doesn't reference) and note that over the next month the reasons shift until finally settling on a false forced choice between funding QandANJ or funding a pair of beloved databases (For more analysis, see: http://blog.peterbromberg.com/2011/04/qandanj-fact-sheets-and-forced-choices.html).
To be clear, the “new plan” that Norma unveiled is one that I proposed days earlier here and here. I'm happy that she sees sees value in the proposal, and I'm happy that she put it forth. It's good for NJ libraries and it's good for the tens of thousands of library customers who use QandANJ. But it's not unimportant to the story to note that her decision to announce this plan 24 days after she unilaterally decided to end QandANJ was made in a climate of great pressure; pressure from QandANJ customers, librarians, and probably more than a few state legislators who have been contacted. Am I pleased she is extending some extra funding for QandANJ and permitting the library community in NJ a little time to work together to find a constructive solution and possibly save the service? Absolutely. Do I think it was a choice made willingly or happily? Notsomuch. But for those of us who are trying to at least have an open, fact-based discussion about the merits of saving the service, a win is a win.
NO MENTION OF NJLA STATEMENT REBUKING STATE LIBRARY
Perhaps the most egregious omission in this article is the failure to mention NJLA's "Statement on NJ State Library/QandANJ". It is my understanding that the NJLA Executive Board and Executive Director Pat Tumulty actually invoked emergency procedures to issue this reprimand a day before our annual conference. It's hard to understate just how serious and unprecedented this kind of rebuke is, and I commend the NJLA Executive Board and Director for their leadership and courage in issuing their statement. It would have been easy to hold the release of the statement until after the NJLA conference, so the timing of the statement's publication-- the day before our statewide conference -- says as much about the seriousness of the offense as the words themselves.
As I have stated to Norma Blake on numerous occasions, I am happy to work with her in every way to help libraries and improve library services for the people of NJ. That is our common ground as librarians and as colleagues. But we still have a long, long, long way to go in many areas. There is a poisonous culture of fear and intimidation in the state right now. So many people are afraid to make critical comments or question State Library decisions for fear of losing their jobs or becoming unemployable. Many people told me that it has become easier to speak up this week in light of the NJLA rebuke, but many more are telling me their opinions and stories and asking not be quoted--even if their story is highly anonymized. The climate is that bad.
I understand that few want to risk their job or career, and they perceive that such is the risk of speaking freely. This, in a profession that prides itself on intellectual freedom and the value of open discourse. Frankly, I'm sick about it, not that I blame anyone for wanting to put food on the table and make their next mortgage payment.
It's going to take some real change to fix the problems in the NJ Library community. We made progress this week and I'm optimistic. But I'm not naive. The devil of this new plan to extend funding for QandANJ will be in the details. Will LibraryLinkNJ actually agree to a contract extension? (No, Norma didn't run the contract extension plan by the contractee first-- part of the pattern of not acknowledging partners or seeking input when appropriate.) Who will be the key players in assessing QandANJ and recommending whether it should continue? Will the State Library ever share usable budget numbers that will allow those in the NJ Library community to grasp what money we have and where it's being spent so we can make informed recommendation about how to prioritize?
There will be common ground ahead. But until people feel like they can openly criticize State Library decisions without suffering consequence to their livelihood, and until the State Library opens its books, shares its budget with its constituents, and generally becomes a whole lot more transparent and collaborative, there's going to be a whole lot of work to do.
ZWJV49BVTM8A
 |
| AL Direct, 5/4/2011 |
I appreciate that LJ has chosen to cover the story of Norma Blake's unilateral decision to defund QandANJ, and her more recent decision --in response to a great outcry -- to temporarily extend funding. However, I think the LJ article largely fails to convey the level of anger and protest going on in our state library community. Yes, many are angry about the possibility of losing QandANJ. But more importantly, we are angry about the way the decision was made; without input, consultation, or sound basis. The article reports Norma Blake's position and highly disputed "facts" at length, but without balancing them very well with opposing opinions or fact-checking.
I encourage everyone to look at the original reasons given for cutting QandANJ in the April 4th notice (which LJ doesn't reference) and note that over the next month the reasons shift until finally settling on a false forced choice between funding QandANJ or funding a pair of beloved databases (For more analysis, see: http://blog.peterbromberg.com/2011/04/qandanj-fact-sheets-and-forced-choices.html).
To be clear, the “new plan” that Norma unveiled is one that I proposed days earlier here and here. I'm happy that she sees sees value in the proposal, and I'm happy that she put it forth. It's good for NJ libraries and it's good for the tens of thousands of library customers who use QandANJ. But it's not unimportant to the story to note that her decision to announce this plan 24 days after she unilaterally decided to end QandANJ was made in a climate of great pressure; pressure from QandANJ customers, librarians, and probably more than a few state legislators who have been contacted. Am I pleased she is extending some extra funding for QandANJ and permitting the library community in NJ a little time to work together to find a constructive solution and possibly save the service? Absolutely. Do I think it was a choice made willingly or happily? Notsomuch. But for those of us who are trying to at least have an open, fact-based discussion about the merits of saving the service, a win is a win.
NO MENTION OF NJLA STATEMENT REBUKING STATE LIBRARY
Perhaps the most egregious omission in this article is the failure to mention NJLA's "Statement on NJ State Library/QandANJ". It is my understanding that the NJLA Executive Board and Executive Director Pat Tumulty actually invoked emergency procedures to issue this reprimand a day before our annual conference. It's hard to understate just how serious and unprecedented this kind of rebuke is, and I commend the NJLA Executive Board and Director for their leadership and courage in issuing their statement. It would have been easy to hold the release of the statement until after the NJLA conference, so the timing of the statement's publication-- the day before our statewide conference -- says as much about the seriousness of the offense as the words themselves.
As I have stated to Norma Blake on numerous occasions, I am happy to work with her in every way to help libraries and improve library services for the people of NJ. That is our common ground as librarians and as colleagues. But we still have a long, long, long way to go in many areas. There is a poisonous culture of fear and intimidation in the state right now. So many people are afraid to make critical comments or question State Library decisions for fear of losing their jobs or becoming unemployable. Many people told me that it has become easier to speak up this week in light of the NJLA rebuke, but many more are telling me their opinions and stories and asking not be quoted--even if their story is highly anonymized. The climate is that bad.
I understand that few want to risk their job or career, and they perceive that such is the risk of speaking freely. This, in a profession that prides itself on intellectual freedom and the value of open discourse. Frankly, I'm sick about it, not that I blame anyone for wanting to put food on the table and make their next mortgage payment.
It's going to take some real change to fix the problems in the NJ Library community. We made progress this week and I'm optimistic. But I'm not naive. The devil of this new plan to extend funding for QandANJ will be in the details. Will LibraryLinkNJ actually agree to a contract extension? (No, Norma didn't run the contract extension plan by the contractee first-- part of the pattern of not acknowledging partners or seeking input when appropriate.) Who will be the key players in assessing QandANJ and recommending whether it should continue? Will the State Library ever share usable budget numbers that will allow those in the NJ Library community to grasp what money we have and where it's being spent so we can make informed recommendation about how to prioritize?
There will be common ground ahead. But until people feel like they can openly criticize State Library decisions without suffering consequence to their livelihood, and until the State Library opens its books, shares its budget with its constituents, and generally becomes a whole lot more transparent and collaborative, there's going to be a whole lot of work to do.
ZWJV49BVTM8A
Sunday, May 01, 2011
I agree with Norma Blake: Common ground and possible steps forward
On April 7th, New Jersey State Librarian Norma Blake held a webinar to discuss, among other topics, the decision to end QandANJ.org effective June 30, 2011. I was unable to attend the live webinar (I was off that week due to a death in the family), but I recently sat down and listened to the entire recording.
COMMON GROUND
I was pleased to find that there might some area of common ground regarding the future of QandANJ-- at least a place we could build from. For instance, one webinar attendee asked, "If the public demanded it, would QandANJ be resurrected?" Norma answered in the negative, but I heartily agree with her comment:
A MODEST PROPOSAL
To that end, I propose a six month period (July 1 - Dec. 31) during which time QandANJ funding is continued at a minimal level -- enough to "keep the lights on" and services flowing. Norma stated in her webinar that there is enough money to pay the Program Coordinator through the summer. Surely a little bit of money can be found to keep QandANJ live through Dec 31st. We can use that time to put together a task force of librarians from various libraries across the state to evaluate whether or not it makes sense to continue the service. The task force can work with the State Library, LibraryLinkNJ and other stakeholders (including QandANJ customers, a natural and passionate base of support) to identify funding options and the best path forward for management and sustainability. If it is determined that it is not worthwhile to continue QandANJ, then we will have time to properly wind down the service, giving customers ample notice and libraries an opportunity to plan accordingly.
MAY 13TH NJLA MEETING: A TIME FOR CONSTRUCTIVE DISCUSSION
I look forward to hearing from Norma Blake, as well as from Cheryl O'Connor and Beth Cackowski (LibraryLinkNJ) at the May 13th NJLA meeting at Princeton Public Library, and discussing how we can work together constructively to find a creative solution that benefits our library customers and leverages the enormous investment we've made in this groundbreaking service.
COMMON GROUND
I was pleased to find that there might some area of common ground regarding the future of QandANJ-- at least a place we could build from. For instance, one webinar attendee asked, "If the public demanded it, would QandANJ be resurrected?" Norma answered in the negative, but I heartily agree with her comment:
"Once a program is gone it’s very difficult to start it back up again"I also agree with her comment that we should "go through a lot of collecting ideas from people throughout the state, as to exactly what they want and what would work best." Norma was suggesting we do this after QandANJ ends. I'm simply suggesting that we have discussions prior to implementing a decision that would eliminate a popular and cost effective library service since, as Norma says, it would be extremely difficult to start it back up again..
It was clearly a mistake to announce the ending of QandANJ without "collecting ideas from people throughout the state", (as recently noted in an official statement by NJLA) but it is a mistake that we can still rectify. Together as a library community, we have invested ten years, millions of dollars, and hundreds of thousands of hours of library staff time in creating a well known, highly successful library brand. Isn't it sensible, prudent, and fiscally responsible with regard to the huge investment we've already made to look at all of the facts, all of the options, and then make an informed, inclusive decision about the future of QandANJ based on reasoned analysis?
A MODEST PROPOSAL
To that end, I propose a six month period (July 1 - Dec. 31) during which time QandANJ funding is continued at a minimal level -- enough to "keep the lights on" and services flowing. Norma stated in her webinar that there is enough money to pay the Program Coordinator through the summer. Surely a little bit of money can be found to keep QandANJ live through Dec 31st. We can use that time to put together a task force of librarians from various libraries across the state to evaluate whether or not it makes sense to continue the service. The task force can work with the State Library, LibraryLinkNJ and other stakeholders (including QandANJ customers, a natural and passionate base of support) to identify funding options and the best path forward for management and sustainability. If it is determined that it is not worthwhile to continue QandANJ, then we will have time to properly wind down the service, giving customers ample notice and libraries an opportunity to plan accordingly.
MAY 13TH NJLA MEETING: A TIME FOR CONSTRUCTIVE DISCUSSION
I look forward to hearing from Norma Blake, as well as from Cheryl O'Connor and Beth Cackowski (LibraryLinkNJ) at the May 13th NJLA meeting at Princeton Public Library, and discussing how we can work together constructively to find a creative solution that benefits our library customers and leverages the enormous investment we've made in this groundbreaking service.
Friday, April 29, 2011
NJLA Statement on NJ State Library/QandANJ
Thank you to the NJLA Executive Board and Executive Director Pat Tumulty for issuing the following statement. (Note added 5/6: Statement now available on NJLA Blog)
THE USE OF STATE AND FEDERAL LIBRARY FUNDS
THE ELIMINATION OF QandANJ
NJLA believes the library community must have a voice in determining the programs and services provided by state and federal dollars to the residents of New Jersey. Currently, the NJ State Librarian has two committees with statutory responsibilities in providing direction for the use of state/or federal funds. These committees are the LSTA Advisory Committee and the Library Network Review Board. In order to provide transparency to the library community, the New Jersey State Library must consult with its proper advisory board when budgetary or programmatic changes are to be made. This will give the library community the opportunity to provide input to these critical decisions.
NJLA believes that the decision to eliminate QandANJ should have been presented to the proper advisory board for discussion and input by the library community. The loss of this service has serious implications for the residents of New Jersey and a thoughtful deliberative discussion by the library community would have been beneficial to the library community and the state library. In these days of declining resources NJLA understands that the State Library has the difficult task of balancing the needs of the New Jersey library community and determining how best to utilize these scarce resources. But we also believe the library community’s representatives to the LSTA Advisory Committee and the Library Network Review Board have much to contribute. As the voice of the library community, their advice should be sought and carefully considered.
The recently posted QandANJ fact sheet references an NJLA survey conducted last year. The NJLA Public Policy Committee did do a survey that identified Databases, ILL/Delivery and State Aid as top priorities among statewide services but that survey was conducted in December 2008, not last year. The survey was discussed extensively during the forums NJLA conducted in early 2009 but it has not been updated since that time and NJLA does not know if this is an accurate representation of how the library community would prioritize services today. Again, NJLA believes the advice and counsel of the LSTA Advisory Committee and the Library Network Review Board as well as the QandANJ providers should have been sought in this matter prior to announcement of a final decision on de-funding this service.
The NJLA Reference Section will be holding a discussion on May 13 regarding the options for QandANJ. Everyone is welcome.
The New Jersey Library Association expects the NJ State Library to hold an open meeting with the entire library community as soon possible to discuss the allocation of all state and federal funding. Transparency in the use of library funding is critical for all.
Issued by the New Jersey Library Association April 29, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
QandANJ "Fact" Sheets and Forced Choices: A response
In reading through the State Library's "Fact Sheet" on QandANJ today my first thought was of President Obama, using his precious time -- time which could clearly be used for some productive purpose -- calling a press conference to refute the "facts" being presented that he was not born in Hawaii.
I breathe deeply and repeat to myself: "I will not get sucked into refuting each and every mis-statement, falsehood, and twisting of the truth. It would not be a good use of my energy." I will only hit on a few (and then try to stick to the big picture.)
So let's start with a look at this quote from the Fact Sheet:
Speaking of unpleasant choices, boy has the State Library layed a doozie on us! And to make sure we didn't miss it, they even put it in bold!
FORCED CHOICES: I'LL TAKE THE ICE CREAM!
Let's have another smell test shall we? If in fact this is THE NEW REAL REASON for the death of QandANJ, isn't it a rather significant reason, and one that would have been mentioned in the original email notice? Or wouldn't it at least be mentioned the day after the original notice? Or the 2nd day after that? Or the 3rd day after that? Nope. But now suddenly 24 days later, someone at the State Library realized that--oops! we forgot to mention the REAL reason we're killing QandANJ, and they trot out this silly forced choice between QandANJ and databases; this forced choice between ice cream and going to our rooms without dinner. We'll take ice cream thank you!
More forced choices: The State Library has repeatedly referenced a survey from last year wherein librarians ranked QandANJ as a low priority. Ladies and Gentlemen I was there at the time, pointing out the it made no sense to include QandANJ (a service to customers, staffed by librarians) in a forced ranking with services TO librarians (databases, delivery, etc.) It made no sense then to compare apples to oranges, and it makes no sense now. It tells us nothing that we rated a service that beneifits someone else as a lower priority than services that benefit us -- especially when we were all looking down the barrel of some seriously scary budget cuts at the time.
In fact, there WAS a legitimate apples to apples survey in 2007 (reported in "New Jersey State Library – Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) Five-Year Plan – October 1, 2007 – September 30, 2012 ") that asked NJ librarians to "indicate how well a variety of services met the needs of New Jersey residents. The results?
Presenting limited forced choices like this is how adults speak to children, not how adults speak with adults. It's not how colleagues speak with colleagues. I find it more than a bit insulting to be presented with such a ridiculously manufactured "choice". There are clearly more than two choices in any adult conversation about spending priorities. There are a variety of choices, with upsides and downsides. But I will acknowledge that we in the library community are not well positioned to discuss and evaluate those choices for one very obvious and disturbing reason: The State Library does not share their actual budget information with us.
SHARE THE BUDGET, AND THEN WE CAN TALK
Budgets are tricky things, and can be hard to understand and interpret. But we as a professional community can't begin to have an informed discussion about difficult choices when we only have cherry picked budget information fed to us. There's a certain amount of deja vu all over again happening because for years the State Library has been repeatedly asked to share copies of the State Library, Library Network and LSTA budgets and has failed to do so. I'll ask again. Show us the budgets so we can answer some questions for ourselves. Questions such as:
Is it unreasonable to ask that our State Library share basic, factual, public data that we can use to create informed opinions about library service spending priorities? Let us see the whole budget. Short of that, these “fact sheet” numbers lack any credibility and cannot serve as the basis of a constructive dialogue.
[paragraph deleted 4/29, 6:23 AM]
"Fact Sheets" do not change the fact that prior to issuing their decree, the State Library utterly failed to inform or seek input from the Library Network Review Board (LNRB), LibraryLinkNJ, or any of the participating libraries that have invested hundreds of thousands of hours of their time in developing, improving, and providing this service. Fact Sheets do not change the fact that the State Library went far beyond their proper purview (declining to fund a project), and assumed the right to declare it, simply, dead. Fact sheets do not change the fact that the State Library did not seek out the counsel of their library partners and say, "what can we put together here?" by way of trimming costs or finding alternate funding models for a valued library service-- a valued brand that took years to create. There was no discussion, no creative attempt to save, only to end the service.
Together ("All Together Now", right?) let's talk about whether QandANJ is worth saving. Let's extend its life a few months (surely there is a little money for that), put a task force together to evaluate the facts, and make a recommendation. If it is worth saving, let's find a way to save it. If not, let's give it an honorable ending. But we MUST have an open and honest discussion about it, free from intimidation, and deceit, and decide as a community what our priorities are for library services in New Jersey. And let's not forget or take lightly that there are real people, real customers who are going to be directly affected by the choices we make.
I breathe deeply and repeat to myself: "I will not get sucked into refuting each and every mis-statement, falsehood, and twisting of the truth. It would not be a good use of my energy." I will only hit on a few (and then try to stick to the big picture.)
So let's start with a look at this quote from the Fact Sheet:
"When we realized there wasn't enough federal funding to continue the program we couldn't immediately discuss this with the library community because LibraryLinkNJ requested a three-month block of time starting April 1 to confidentially speak to program participants and conduct an orderly shut down of the program. Had we heard from the federal government sooner there would have been a larger window of time and we could have held discussions, but that was not the case."On it's face, and without comment, this statement is at best, nonsense. At worst it's an untrue declaration. Which is it? Nonsense or Untruth?? Nonsense or Untruth? Now that is an unpleasant choice isn't it? But ask yourself seriously, does the statement above get within a mile of passing the smell test?
Speaking of unpleasant choices, boy has the State Library layed a doozie on us! And to make sure we didn't miss it, they even put it in bold!
"So the choice had to be between RefUSA/EBSCO or QandANJ."Not for nothing, but when the State Library announced on April 4th that QandANJ was ending on June 30th and offered no decent reason I turned to a coworker and said, "If anyone questions it they'll just say it was a choice between databases and QandANJ." I'm not a brilliant prognosticator, but really, where else could they go? And now here we are a full 24 days later and all of a sudden there's a reason, an actual reason, that QandANJ has to got to go. All of a sudden we're told that there's no money next year, so it was either databases (a benefit for libraries, and something we won't live without), or QandANJ (a benefit for our customers, and something we could clearly live without.) Tough choice!
FORCED CHOICES: I'LL TAKE THE ICE CREAM!
Let's have another smell test shall we? If in fact this is THE NEW REAL REASON for the death of QandANJ, isn't it a rather significant reason, and one that would have been mentioned in the original email notice? Or wouldn't it at least be mentioned the day after the original notice? Or the 2nd day after that? Or the 3rd day after that? Nope. But now suddenly 24 days later, someone at the State Library realized that--oops! we forgot to mention the REAL reason we're killing QandANJ, and they trot out this silly forced choice between QandANJ and databases; this forced choice between ice cream and going to our rooms without dinner. We'll take ice cream thank you!
More forced choices: The State Library has repeatedly referenced a survey from last year wherein librarians ranked QandANJ as a low priority. Ladies and Gentlemen I was there at the time, pointing out the it made no sense to include QandANJ (a service to customers, staffed by librarians) in a forced ranking with services TO librarians (databases, delivery, etc.) It made no sense then to compare apples to oranges, and it makes no sense now. It tells us nothing that we rated a service that beneifits someone else as a lower priority than services that benefit us -- especially when we were all looking down the barrel of some seriously scary budget cuts at the time.
In fact, there WAS a legitimate apples to apples survey in 2007 (reported in "New Jersey State Library – Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) Five-Year Plan – October 1, 2007 – September 30, 2012 ") that asked NJ librarians to "indicate how well a variety of services met the needs of New Jersey residents. The results?
Respondents gave JerseyCat a 4.16 rating (Again with 5 meaning that the service meets the needs of New Jersey residents “very well.”) While ratings for a variety of other statewide services were a bit lower, most were still well above the mid-point of the scale, indicating that respondents believe the services are meeting the needs of library users. For example, the Q&A NJ program rated 3.88; technology support services was rated at 3.85; the New Jersey Trustee Institute at 3.75; and the portal aspect of the JerseyClicks program garnered a 3.40 rating.Goodbye technology support services, goodbye Trustee Institute, Goodbye JerseyClicks!! QandANJ was ranked ahead of all y'all.
Presenting limited forced choices like this is how adults speak to children, not how adults speak with adults. It's not how colleagues speak with colleagues. I find it more than a bit insulting to be presented with such a ridiculously manufactured "choice". There are clearly more than two choices in any adult conversation about spending priorities. There are a variety of choices, with upsides and downsides. But I will acknowledge that we in the library community are not well positioned to discuss and evaluate those choices for one very obvious and disturbing reason: The State Library does not share their actual budget information with us.
SHARE THE BUDGET, AND THEN WE CAN TALK
Budgets are tricky things, and can be hard to understand and interpret. But we as a professional community can't begin to have an informed discussion about difficult choices when we only have cherry picked budget information fed to us. There's a certain amount of deja vu all over again happening because for years the State Library has been repeatedly asked to share copies of the State Library, Library Network and LSTA budgets and has failed to do so. I'll ask again. Show us the budgets so we can answer some questions for ourselves. Questions such as:
- Four Regions were consolidated into one, but there has been no cut to the Network line. How much money was saved? Where has that money gone?
- How much Network money is being sat on?
- QandANJ has always been paid out of last year’s federal money. How much federal money are you currently sitting on?
- How much state money do you have, how much are you sitting on?
- How is all this money being allocated? Why do databases need to come out of federal money?
Is it unreasonable to ask that our State Library share basic, factual, public data that we can use to create informed opinions about library service spending priorities? Let us see the whole budget. Short of that, these “fact sheet” numbers lack any credibility and cannot serve as the basis of a constructive dialogue.
"Fact Sheets" do not change the fact that prior to issuing their decree, the State Library utterly failed to inform or seek input from the Library Network Review Board (LNRB), LibraryLinkNJ, or any of the participating libraries that have invested hundreds of thousands of hours of their time in developing, improving, and providing this service. Fact Sheets do not change the fact that the State Library went far beyond their proper purview (declining to fund a project), and assumed the right to declare it, simply, dead. Fact sheets do not change the fact that the State Library did not seek out the counsel of their library partners and say, "what can we put together here?" by way of trimming costs or finding alternate funding models for a valued library service-- a valued brand that took years to create. There was no discussion, no creative attempt to save, only to end the service.
Together ("All Together Now", right?) let's talk about whether QandANJ is worth saving. Let's extend its life a few months (surely there is a little money for that), put a task force together to evaluate the facts, and make a recommendation. If it is worth saving, let's find a way to save it. If not, let's give it an honorable ending. But we MUST have an open and honest discussion about it, free from intimidation, and deceit, and decide as a community what our priorities are for library services in New Jersey. And let's not forget or take lightly that there are real people, real customers who are going to be directly affected by the choices we make.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)