HAWAII: History of Book Selection

[Pat Wallace <DENWALL@AOL.COM>]

EDITED VERSION OF INFORMATION FROM PUBLIC HEARINGS
IN HAWAII HELD BY STATE LIBRARY ASSOCIATION.
STAFF VIEWS, QUESTIONS, AND PROPOSALS.
(editing by Pat Wallace -- Denwall@aol.com
*************************************************
 "HSPLS AND OUTSOURCING"
(History of the book selection process at Hawaii
State Public Library System)
                   by Sarah Preble

                               Ms. Preble has been a librarian in the
                              Fine Arts section of the Hawaii State
                              Library since 1990. In this capacity,
                              she reviews art books for HSL, creates
                              and revises bibliographies, maintains
                              picture files, and provides arts

                              reference services.
Hawaii Library Association Conference /
October 19, 1996
--------------------------------------------------------
I am speaking for myself, not as an official representative
of the Hawaii State Library. However, I have been listening
to my colleagues and reading inter-branch E-mail.

My comments focus on the outsourcing of book
SELECTION.
Public libraries had long been purchasing books at a discount
from wholesalers such as Baker and Taylor, or from Ingram.
It is the matter of turning selection over to the supplier
that is new here.

Public librarians were not included in the
decision-making process.

The public libraries' Baker & Taylor contract contains
a number of clauses that cause alarm among staff
members.
To mention a few:

   * The entire book budget was given over to B&T.

   * Standing Orders (reference materials) were...
     limited to 3% of the book budget...
      The system spent between 14% and 31% of the materials
      budget for standing orders in... 1993 through 1995.
      Where did that 3% figure used in the Baker & Taylor
      contract come from? A dropped digit?...

   * Contract enforcement and evaluation criteria
     are shaky, at best.

The contract evaluation emphasis on high circulation may
explain the very low figure for standing orders
(the reference collection).

Circulation is not the only concern for librarians.
Some of the most heavily used portions of my section are
non-circulating reference books.

I am pained when I tell patrons that the specific recent,
well-reviewed title they want is not in the collection
and may never be acquired...Libraries are not receiving
a high percentage of the titlesour customers want....
Thus far, the few books we have received are nearly all
sports books and "star" biographies -- almost nothing
on art and music.

Baker & Taylor is now providing hundreds, even thousands of
dollars of books librarians

   * don't consider sound selections,
   * don't want taking limited shelf space, and
   * don't want their precious budget dollars used for.

PATRONS ASK "HOW AND WHY WAS THIS DECISION MADE?"

I don't understand why, but the recent history of selection
gives a clue as to how.

Until 1992, librarians selected books for their own libraries
and HSL sections. Ordering and processing were handled
at our Centralized Processing Center.

The consensus among library staff was that selection basically worked well,
but...that ordering and processing (especially ordering) were in need of
major change.....The library administration
decided to replace the selection system and retain the old ordering and
processing systems.

They scrapped the part that worked best
and saved what worked least.

In 1992 the administration created a Centralized Selection Section.
This local mini-outsourcing took selection away from librarians in the
branches. ....
In late 1993 public librarians were asked to evaluate Centralized Selection.
The lengthy survey (returned by
44 librarians throughout the system) indicated that Centralized Selection had
failed.

I would like to read excerpts of the first two pages of the Evaluation
Committee Chair's summary draft. These comments could have been written last
week -- in reference to selection by Baker & Taylor.

   When centralized selection was started, four goals were
   identified. The first was 'More time for public service.'
   That hasn't happened....A great deal of time is taken up trying
   to determine what a library  will be receiving... and what
   materials are out there in the world....

   Centralized selection had as a goal 'Get the right book
  to the right library.' This isn't happening...

   To me, if you have the right book in the right library you
   automatically have more time for public service because
   librarians aren't constantly hunting for materials that aren't
   in their facility....

As the CSS Evaluation summary concludes,
taking selection away from librarians
does not save the librarians time. In fact,
it is quite the reverse.

It seemed to many librarians that the Board of Education --
after reading this evaluation report -- would take a dim
view of having people on the mainland selecting books for
our public libraries. It is my understanding, however, that the results of
this evaluation survey were NEVER SHARED WITH THE BOE -- OR WITH MOST OF THE
HSPLS STAFF.

So, here we are. Out of the frying pan and into the fire.
What is the State Librarian going to do about it?
What is the BOE going to do about it?
What is Baker & Taylor going to do about it?
This is your problem. Your reputations and credibility are on the line.
The front-line librarians did not create this situation.
We don't think it is going to "get better" any more than our own
Centralized Selection ever got better.

The situation is now beyond back-room gossip.
It is beyond inter-office E-mail.
Hawaii's public libraries and their outsourcing problems
are being discussed on the Internet.
*************************************************