Yet Another Reason AFPL Needs
a Full-Time Electronic Resources Librarian
Posted February 24, 2006
AFPL has limped along for years now without an individual on staff being
paid to oversee - without the distractions of dozens of other duties - the
library system's half-a-million dollars' worth of licensed databases and
to coordinate the library system's other Internet-based activities.
When the library system's former (and first) Electron Resources Librarian
resigned, Hooker (or, more precisely, board chair William McClure) chose
not to replace her, despite the obvious need for such an administrator and
despite the pleas from library staff serving at that time on the library
system's Electronic Resources Committee, a group established by the
Electronic Resources Librarian to advise her.
The need for an Electronic Resources Librarian has only become more, rather
than less, urgent, which is why AFPLWATCH included the re-establishment of
that position among the 99 Ways to
Restore Excellence to AFPL that we suggested almost a year ago.
Despite the ostrich-like refusal of Hooker to replace AFPL's Electronic
Resources Librarian - and the subsequent kidnapping of the library system's
webmaster postition (a position that initially reported to the Electronic
Resources Librarian) - and despite the failure of Hooker's successors to
remedy Hooker's ill-advised decision, Internet technology has continued to
evolve. And, with the notable exception of AFPL, larger public library
systems have spent the past five years exploiting various emerging Internet
tools on behalf of their libraries' users.
And now there's yet another good reason for AFPL to hire someone to help
guide it through the intricacies of the Internet-based components of its
services to patrons:
Google's Page Creator, which allows anyone with a (free) gmail e-mail
account to quickly and easily create a web page.
We can imagine wonderful uses of such a tool for libraries. For starters,
staff could create web pages in conjunction with library exhibits, create
websites in conjunction with library-sponsored events, and create
carefully-crafted, annotated, updatable recommended reading lists that are
based on AFPL holdings.
Ideally, hyperlinks to these websites would be posted to AFPL's official
website. But how, how quickly, under what conditions, and with whose
approval, could such links be created? At the moment, AFPL doesn't even
have a webmaster on staff, much less an Electronic Resources honcho with
the authority to review, approve, and conveniently implement changes to
the library system's website.
Of course, links from AFPL's website aren't technically necessary for
someone to find an AFPL-related websites: you could find such a website -
like you can find AFPLWATCH, for example - through a simple Google search.
But it would be better, of course, if there were some method of bestowing
legitimacy and credibility to any AFPL-related websites, including
temporary ones, that industrious and creative staff members might be moved -
even encouraged - to construct. And it would be helpful to have some
guidelines for maximizing one's chances of obtaining a link to one's
website from AFPL's official site.
For now, we suppose that any such experiments, no matter how laudable or
productive, will have to include some sort of disclaimer that it isn't
officially endorsed by the library's administrators. How much better,
though, if there was a mechanism in place for obtaining that endorsement.
Formula for Dividing Up AFPL's Materials Budget
Needs a Long-Overdue Overhaul
Posted February 13, 2006
Earlier this month, the library system's managers were told how much money
each of them was being given this year to purchase library materials for
their branch's patrons.
The announcement in early February of those allocations is the good news:
in many previous years, managers and selectors were lucky if they knew
by early spring how much (or how little) they'd have to buy new and replacement
materials for their branch collections.
The bad news is how flawed the allocations formula remains so long after
the library was finally rid of its previous director and its former
micromanaging board of trustees.
In The Perfect Library, there wouldn't be any great surprises about its
administrators divide among its various facilities the annual
materials-purchasing pie. That's because, in The Perfect Library, most of
the funds for purchasing materials would be steered toward the branches
handling the bulk of the items the library system lends out, and less
money would be given to the branches that handle the fewest materials
transactions.
But for some of the busiest branches at AFPL, it's been many years since
there was a clear correlation between between workloads (as measured by
their circulation figures) and their materials budgets. Unfortunately,
that's true again this year.
That's because AFPL's materials budget is still being divved up according
to a formula devised many years ago by several members of the library
system's former board of trustees - the same board whose chronic ineptitude,
clueless micromanagement, and illegal personnel maneuvers resulted in two
federal lawsuits and a library system so dysfunctional that the state
legislature finally abolished the board and replaced it with another one.
The removal of the trustees from the management of the library system's
operations and the hiring of a competent new library director should have
resulted in, among other things, an overhaul of the allocation formula for
2006, but, disappointingly, that didn't happen.
Circulation figures do play a role in the allocation formula, but it is
by no means the only factor. Other factors in the 2006 formula include
a facility's square footage, turnover, Holds fill rate, circ increase/decrease
over last year, circ per capita, in-house use per capita, collection age,
and the number of items lost from the collection in the previous year.
In any materials allocation formula, it might be reasonable to give weight
to factors other than the total number of items a branch circulates. For
example, factoring into this year's allocation the number of Holds a branch
handles was obviously relevant to how much money a branch should get to
purchase materials. On the other hand, there shouldn't be so many things
factored into an allocations formula that the sheer number of factors
itself seriously mitigates the overriding influence of the branch's
circulation relative to other branches of the same size.
This Year's Winners and Losers
The allocation spreadsheet distributed to managers last week, like so many
other administrative documents, lists branches in alphabetical order.
When the final allocations totals are ranked, however, the
resulting figures makes it clear that the allocations formula is seriously
flawed:
- The Central Library received 7% more in funds to purchase library
materials this year than the percentage of circulation it handled last year.
- Branch facilities awarded substantially less (at least 3% less) of a percentage of
this year’s funds for purchasing library materials than the percentage of
circulation they handled last year: Roswell (a 7% difference), Northeast
(a 5.5% difference), and Alpharetta (a 4.3% difference).
- In terms of their relative rankings in the allocation
for purchasing materials this year vs. their rankings in the percentage of
circulation they handled last year, only five facilities’ rankings in both
categories match up: Buckhead, Carver Homes, Hapeville, Northeast,
and Northside.
- Facilities whose allocation ranking was higher than
their circulation-handling ranking: Adams Park, Adamsville Collier-Heights,
Alpharetta, Central, Cleveland Avenue, College Park, East Atlanta, Fairburn,
Georgia-Hill, Kirkwood, Mechanicsville, Peachtree, Ponce de Leon, South
Fulton, Southwest, Stewart-Lakewood, and Washington Park.
Facilities with substantial ranking disparities: Central, East Atlanta,
Peachtree, South Fulton, Southwest, Washington Park.
- Facilities whose allocation ranking was lower than their
circulation-handling ranking: Bankhead Courts, Bowen Homes, Dogwood, East
Point, Perry Homes, Roswell, Sandy Springs, Thomasville Heights, West End.
Facilities with substantial ranking disparities: Dogwood,
East Point, Roswell, Sandy Springs.
Other Problems with AFPL's Materials Allocation Formula
- As in previous years, the allocation for the Auburn Avenue Research Library,
which does not lend out materials, is exempt from the formula, as are other
"systemwide resources." It is not at all clear how library administrators
decide how much purchasing power to give Auburn each year. Since
Auburn's reference-only function completely insulates it from the
performance measure called "total circulation," what performance measure
is used to determine its yearly allocation for purchasing materials? This
matters not only because Auburn currently receives more purchasing dollars
than any Regional Library but also because the price tag for "systemwide
resources" dictates how much of the purchasing budget is left over to divvy up among the circulating
facilities (including the system-supporting Central Library, which is
not exempt from the allocation formula).
- Despite the fact that the Ocee branch is consistently one of the three
busiest branches in the library system, none of the library system's
dollars for purchasing library materials was given to the Ocee branch this
year. Instead, Ocee will buy its new materials from the dollars it got
when it was built to buy its collection. Since the opening of a new branch
is a multi-year process, it makes sense not to spend all its money for
buying materials before the branch opens and before it becomes clear what
kinds of materials its users need. But was it the intention of the
commissioners to replace the annual infusion of branch
purchasing dollars with a branch's start-up money, or was the start-up
money supposed to be for resources over and above its year-to-year
allocations?
Whatever the answer to that question, one danger of excluding Ocee from
the materials budget is that, next year, when Ocee's so-called opening-day
collection dollars are depleted, Ocee will be given a share of the library
system's 2007 materials purchasing dollars, and the allocations for other
branches will be severely affected.
Changes are Long Overdue
With a library system as large as AFPL's, and with facilities whose
circulation counts vary so markedly, devising a fair allocation formula
is bound to be difficult. As AFPL's budget pie gets smaller and smaller
due to cuts in the library's budget and as the number of pieces in that
pie remains large due to the library's failure to close any branches (no
matter how few materials some of them circulate), it seems increasingly
more important for the allocation formula to give greater weight to
circulation than to other factors. And whatever formula is used, it
shouldn't - like this year's formula did - include a completely irrational
computation (the mis-named "enhancement" factor") to make sure that this
year's allocations weren't too radically different than last year's
regardless of the relevant circulation figures.
We hope that AFPL's administrators will, before announcing next year's
allocations, revisit the allocation formula and come up with one that's
based on current workloads, service population sizes, etc. rather than on
so many additional extraneous factors that the status quo is largely
undisturbed.
Equally important, the library's users would get a lot more bang for their
bucks if
- there was some accountability among branch managers for spending the
dollars they're given. Currently, there are no consequences whatsoever for
a manager's spending out his/her branch's allocation - or not. That leaves
some busy branches waiting until the end of the year to be given the
unspent dollars from other branches, instead of having those dollars
available to them at the beginning and middle of the purchasing season.
Why not factor into the allocation formula a branch manager's relative
success - or failure - in spending out his/her previous year's allocation for purchasing
materials?
- there shouldn't be a "purchasing season" at AFPL. Library
selectors should be able to purchase materials year-round, not be constrained
by a March-to-August window of opportunity for purchasing, followed by a
completely unpredicable amount (and an additional mini-season) of
purchasing later in the fall when administrators figure out how to re-divvy-up
unspent funds.
It's too late now to adjust this year's allocations without creating undue
confusion. But library administrators, including its no-longer-new library
director, have an entire year to scrutinize the allocation formula - and
the performance of its managers in spending their materials allocations -
before another announcing another far-reaching round of allocations. We
hope they don't squander their opportunity, and that selectors at the
library system's busiest branches don't find themselves in the same boat,
purchasing-wise, that they've been in now for the past seven years or so.
Business As Usual:
Disconnect Between Staffing and Workloads
Posted February 2, 2006
Following a pattern that hasn't changed substantially in years, some
branches were radically busier than others in January when it came to
the library's primary mission - lending out and reshelving returned
library materials.
The busiest branches, some of them consistently
handling ten times the amount of circulation than others,
do their work despite the failure of library administrators to adjust
staffing allocations to reflect the different workloads at different
branches.
That failure flies in the face of abundant data, including
January's circ totals, that show which branches handle the
brunt of the library system's circulation and which branches do very little
circulating of library materials, whatever else they do for county library
users.
Continue reading previously-posted AFPLWATCH articles
|
.com