No, actually, please don't. In fact, in the end, what your local librarian really wants most is simply to get the books back. Borrow them? Return them. Thanks. (Most of our places even have drop boxes, so you can leave 'em there and call us up afterwards to explain if they were more than just a little late.) So why would something so patently obvious be a problem?
As it turns out, it's not so much "our" problem as it is another example of entertainment media masquerading as news -hobos- "tramps", looking for an issue to hop on and see where it goes. As it happened, I was rudely awakened the other day, in one of those spit-your-coffee-at-the-screen moments, when I saw little Dudley-Tucker Library on WMUR TV. See what happened below:
The issue, it seems, was that a local seven-year-old had received an overdue letter, which threatened to get the police involved for about $60.00 worth of overdue [September '06] books (and fines? the story wasn't clear, but you can find the library's overdue policy on this pageif you want.) Personally, I am writing this in part because I am a citizen-taxpayer, one who cares about the Freedoms our libraries and librarians are fighting to preserve for us. [Off topic quickie: it was suggested somewhere here, recently that someone should do a diary on the "History" of the Making of the PATRIOT ACT. That is beyond me to produce, but I'm sure someone(s) here can.] The rest of my story is that I am currently a co-director of another tiny library in a rural, wooded area, and also an assistant at another library in a town nearly ten times bigger. I have written here at dkos in praise of libraries before, in the comments section. This is my first actual diary here, which I write because I was so incensed at the way the story was presented.
The parents were upset, basically because a strongly worded letter threatening legal action to reclaim the books (Our Town library version is to send the Sheriff out to directly-collect them) and the parent's felt that was awfully strong and threatening to say to a seven-year-old, and that we should deal with them instead. WMUR talked to both sides, but it appeared to me they let the Dad have the last word in some kind of righteous anger that was completely misleading if you understand that no matter what else occurred in this stupid bit of miscommunication, the bottom line is: the father said, "we packed the books in boxes when we moved." Yes, I know, I believe him. I see it happen all the time. People scoop up all the kids' stuff into a box, then unpack in a new town and just never get around to dropping them off, 'cause you don't live there any more so it doesn't matter. Except that it does. By knowingly taking the books out of town, or at least willfully not returning them when he figured it out, he committed a crime. The library would not send out the police to arrest him for that, but we do reserve the right to send the law out to get our property back.
Nevermind that, he says, the issue is that you sent the letter to my daughter, who is seven years old!
Well, as I said, I e-mailed WMUR, but I don't have the text to show here, because for some reason, although I got a weird screen message stating WMUR had receivedmy message, the letter itself never seems to have entered my regular "sent" folder, which I usually check right after sending any e-mail I have spent significant time on. Please allow me a shoutout here to Daily Kos, for I'd never be able to hyperlink alone. Meanwhile, I also e-mailed my NH State Inter-Library Loan List, to support Dudley-Tucker's Librarian, and to see if anyone else saw what I saw. Turns out they saw even more than I did, and I will let them speak here, although it will be anonymous for now, as I haven't had the chance to ask them personally if they want to be quoted. But what was said was very consistent:
"Adults are responsible for what their children take out and I was upset as well with the tone of the story implying the big bad library was harassing a seven-year-old."
This is true. Unfortunately, this is also where protocol bumps up against privacy issues. In NH, if the child has her own separate library card, she is the borrower, and we cannot disclose any of her information to the parents except that there are books due, and that all other business will be directed at the child, who has the option to tell or not tell what's up with the books, but the parent still foots the bill. Most of our libraries have quite similar policies, and require a parent's signature to authorize the child's card. (Our library policy is: no children under eight-years-old allowed unattended, so there most likely was an adult involved when the books went out.)
One Librarian, playing "devil's advocate" suggested it's up to us to better educate the public when they bring their children in. Well, okay, I can dig it. That is exactly why I was so angry about the negative publicity, generated for no reason at all except that apparently the father himself
"took the time to contact a Boston station when they could have just rounded up their things and returned them. They went to the news media because THEY did something wrong, only in America."
I could not find a link to the Fox story on-line, but I did find it was true that
"It gets better. The AP picked it up. I saw it in the Nashua Telegraph."
Someone else said
I saw a brief clipping in the newspaper about it as well. Would we even be having this conversation if the patron failed to return videos to Blockbuster? Don't think so.
Now I hope you're all still with me, because this is not just a diary to whine about bad PR. I wish I could link you back to the diaries about Fox News reporters going out of their way to be obnoxious, because here is what the librarian herself had to say: Many thanks for the support from my fellow librarians.
"For those that didn't see Fox last night (and I'm one of them) my staff tells me that the reporter showed the child's library card so you could clearly see her name and address. The parents said I emotionally damaged their daughter...do you think they have blinders on? Can you imagine the flack if any of us made that information public? No doubt the library would be involved in a law suit. I sincerely appreciate your good thoughts."
This is where the blaring, blaming MSM deliberately muddles the story, when the real plotline was an American Father demonstrates to his child how to take what you want, not return it, and complain loudly when the authorities step in. Bad Boy Bad Boy. Privacy is the issue here, in several respects. We are it's protectors for both you and your children.
In our library, it has been the policy for years that the only records we keep of who borrows what are who has it now, and who was the most recent before that, in case of damage discovered later. Our stated reason for this is so that when the FBI comes looking, we can honestly say we don't have a record to show them. This is directly contrary to what most people would like (can't your computer keep a list of what I've read or not?) and directly in response to the PATRIOT ACT. And get this- not only am I not supposed to let anyone know if my library is being watched, I can't even tell me Trustees. (I am allowed to circumvent the truth by always telling them we are NOT currently being watched, then Not telling them anything if we are, and allowing them to jump to conclusions. I hate that way of being and I don't like to play games.
202-A:1 Declaration of Policy. – Mindful that, as the constitution declares, ""knowledge and learning, generally diffused through a community'' are ""essential to the preservation of a free government'' the legislature recognizes its duty to encourage the people of New Hampshire to extend their education during and beyond the years of formal education. To this end, it hereby declares that the public library is a valuable supplement to the formal system of free public education and as such deserves adequate financial support from government at all levels.
I just want to say that I personally think that the libraries supplement far more than education, and I think I will just see what you think about that with a poll. So for now, adios, (I must go to work) but I'd like to leave you with this thought:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I support that family's right to be a pain in the patootie if they want to, but that doesn't make them right. Thanks a lot TV Media. Kill Your Television. Support Your Local Library: Assemble Here.
[little fun-at-the-library update]:
Just now I ran across a book called What Would Jackie Do?: an Inspired Guide to Distinctive Living. I opened it randomly to see what they say Jackie Kennedy Onassis would have done, and the first page I turned to had this gem:
Know Your Way Around the Stacks
As in, the library. Because a) Google just isn't enough and b) that's what people of susbtance do. Besides, there's something slightly romantic about getting lost in the musty rows of an important collection. And you might just find it titillating to be scolded- or praised- by a stern librarian.
I just love serendipity.