Upper Hutt Library Changes

Jan from Ebdentown

UPDATE
I have had a reply to my request for the research quoted as the authoritative basis for changes to the Library: I was forced by UHCC to request it under the Official Information Act!
• My question was that I be given the research statistics/data that the following statement refers to.
“The changes were well researched and based on successful similar libraries both in New Zealand and overseas”

I quote from the letter to me from Karen Patterson, Registered Legal Executive – UHCC

“The research completed prior to the Library changes being implemented was not by way of formal written statistical data. The research carried out by the Library Manager and the library leadership team included reading articles, attending conferences and meetings, carrying out fact finding visits to other libraries and discussions with the library fraternity looking at trends of libraries nationally and internationally and is in part summarised in the attached document ‘Proposed Library Layout and Shelving changes’. This information was presented and discussed with Upper Hutt City Councillors”

How do you feel about that? (I now understand why they withheld it)
• The attached document describes ratepayer/members/owners(us) as customers
• It compares the Library to retail spaces and purchases and describes what the Library offers as products
• Apparently only 1 in 3 of us is looking for something specific (so we don’t count?)
• Issue numbers are dropping (so I am right when I supposed this is a number crunch-no mention made of the fact real books and reading is on the rise and ebooks are on the decline- in fact no mention of a negative to their agenda at all)
• The shelving needing updating to comply with earthquake standards
• It also says it will leave science fiction/fantasy and romance in genre sections (that didn’t happen)

This revelation was followed by a list of websites, and Libraries that the Library team accessed. Some of which I have looked at and all are blatantly bias for the changes - all pros and no cons to impede their agenda for change, as such it is simply not credible. I also believe it to be incomplete.

I have looked at a few sites on the list of ‘sources’ that our Library Manager and team use as an authority opinion basis for the changes and despair of how limited, unprofessional and self-serving it is of the new Library Management changes agenda and Councils preoccupation with cost to benefit ratios through number crunching.
• I am shocked that an unbiased professional researcher was not engaged for such big changes to such an important ratepayer funded public service.
• There was no discernible credible research of the market(us) either

I have been a researcher in my working life and a bias body of opinion is NOT research. They also do no have an in depth documented analysis of their findings, just a document that supports in every way their desire for that set of changes.
• What a waste of ratepayers money to not do a proper job before making such big changes to a ratepayer funded public service – to institute such changes on personal opinions and limited bias toward desired outcome loaded information
• What an insult to our intelligence to claim a professionalism where none exists
• What an insult to literate, articulate people to render their local library inoperable to a large group of people who had no previous trouble accessing the Library fiction content before removing genre sections – I suspect because they had no idea we existed
To apply a market driven, commercial model to a ratepayer funded and owned public service is inappropriate and a flawed premise!

A modern healthy civilised community promotes literacy through public libraries, physical health and wellbeing through it children’s play grounds, sports ground and parks, healthy mind through all of those and the Arts and other cultural activities.
• They are not expected to return a monetary gain and nor should they be measured by numbers in a ‘cost to benefit’ manner, they are a ratepayer funded service, not a commercial enterprise. Accessibility and wellbeing should be what counts!
If we are as a community to fund a public Library it must be one that everyone can access, not one that excludes groups of people who have paid through their rates for a Library but are now denied equal access, their search patterns not being accounted for!
• If we are to provide library services that all ratepayers contribute to, then it needs to be accessible by anyone who can read, traditional genre sections provide that opportunity! (by the way - provision of a public Library is core business)

I don’t know about you, but I will be very sceptical of any ‘statistics’ that the Library or Council state in support of the changes. I would have to know what questions were being asked, what parameters and variables were included and their context, before I would find them credible!

I have let Angela McLeod know the outcome of my request and she is still interested in supporting and representing those of us who have been disadvantaged by the changes and those of us who are now excluded from our library by our search styles and by removing genre sections. Angela is our point of contact and is keeping Ros Connelly and Helen Swales informed as well, as they are also interested in supporting and representing us and our concerns (doing their jobs).

I have for the third time emailed the Councillors who are ignoring me and our concerns, Chris Carson, John Gwilliam, Glenn McArthur, Paul Lambert, Dave Wheeler and Blair Griffiths.
• Despite the fact they have sworn to engage with ratepayers, to represent ratepayers and to facilitate the democratic process by engaging with ratepayers
I have now received replies from John Gwillian, who says he didn’t get my earlier emails, funny that, others got theirs. I have also heard from Glenn McArthur who apologises because he thought he had replied, I don’t know which reply appals me more. Both are offering me ongoing dialogue, I will consider it.

Oh well, it is what it is and I will continue to lobby for genre to be reinstated to the Upper Hutt City Library, our Library, and to support anyone who finds they are disadvantaged in any way by the unprofessional lack of research leading to unprofessional changes to our Library.
• Remember we pay all these people wages/salaries/stipends, we pay for the building and its contents, we already pay for the Library, Parks, Playground, Sportsground, Art Gallery and every other ratepayer funded public service. It is all ours!
Please, please, all of you that share my point of view, contact your representatives and let them know how you feel about that the methods used to make a case out for the current changes to our Library which are not valid, due to lack of proper process and lack of transparency due to no statistical or shareable information.
Share with them that you are as appalled as I am that we had to compel our public servants, Mayor and Council to share with us such unprofessional processes and decision making, let Mayor and the Councillors and the Director of Community Services know how you feel.
Back up yourselves and me!
• Remember they count numbers and I am seen as only one voice.
You also might consider requesting Council to supply you the same information that they supplied me with, so you can follow it up yourself, rather than relying on my interpretation.