Hawaii response to B&T-Pt III

[Pat Wallace <DENWALL@AOL.COM>]

FORWARDED BY PATRICIA WALLACE, Chair, Hawaii
Working Group, ALA/SRRT/AIP

From:      "Grant and Deborah Gutermuth" <gutent@hgea.org>
                Deborah Gutermuth, Reference and AV Librarian
                Kaneohe Public Library, HAWAII
To:          "progressive/alternative net" <PLGNET-L@cornell.edu>
Cc:          "Patricia Wallace" <DENWALL@aol.com>
Subject:   Hawaii response to B&T response--Part III
Date:       Thu, 6 Mar 1997

CONTINUATION

3  Duplicate Orders:

There have been no further duplications since December,
1996.  Baker & Taylor acknowledges this was indeed a
problem with the 1995/1996 fiscal year order.  However,
the explanation behind the duplications has yet to be clearly
defined to the residents of Hawaii.

        1) the library system was required to expend its 1996
budget by June 1996 or stand to lose it, in effect throwing
away the opportunity to order new materials for library
patrons during this period.

        2) because of the Ameritech automation contract
dispute, Baker & Taylor did not have access to the library
system's current holdings until July 1996.

        3) Baker & Taylor signed the contract on March 28,
1996, and was immediately instructed to order 60,000 units
within a two month window so the funds could be used before
he June deadline.  The order of 60,000 units was already in
process before Baker & Taylor had received the completed
collection selection guidelines still under formation at some
of the 49 libraries.

In an effort to balance library patron demands for new
selections and not lose its allocated budget dollars,
HSPLS chose to instruct Baker and Taylor to purchase items
without access to the existing holdings, and to utilize the not
yet completed Hawaii library selection guidelines.  Duplications occurred,
and continued as the orders were received over the
ensuing months. Adding to an increase in duplicates, individual
libraries continued their customary practice of ordering
selections with their separate library funds.  Baker & Taylor
was unaware of these orders.


That there have been no duplicates since December is
incorrect.  Their volume has slowed considerably.
If Baker & Taylor could cancel the last 10,000 units in
December to avoid further duplication - why not in September,
October, or November, as these duplications became evident?
Not only have duplications slowed, so has the number of units
received.  To date, less than 15% of fiscal year 1996/1997
units  have been received.  This is 3/4ths of the way through
the fiscal year!  At this rate, we will get the last of this
year's shipments in 1999.

An important statement (excuse) cited by Baker & Taylor
is that they had to expend all funds by June, 1996, or risk
their loss.  Senator Tam has told us that once the contract
was signed in March, those funds were encumbered,
regardless of when they were ordered or shipped.
From this excuse, all others descend.

No access to the database?  All  the libraries had access.
Someone with a modem and a computer could have gotten
"on-line" access to our holdings, just like our patrons do every
day!  What they mean is - - they did not want to spend the time,
money, or personnel to do it this way.  Until our database was
linked with theirs, we got "pot luck". Baker & Taylor could have
waited until July to do the majority of their ordering, when our
databases were linked. Using only common sense, Baker &
Taylor could have eliminated most duplication problems by
buying only new titles.  No new orders had been sent for at
least 6 months.  We were behind at least that much on all
titles in all subject areas and in fiction.

Even though the order was in process - - with the lists of
titles provided by the libraries with their profiles, and the
purchase of current 1996 titles,  most, if not all the 60,000
units could have been filled without serious duplications.
Individual library purchases made with outside funds
(like McLibrary Night and Local Friends groups) were few.


We were sent 50+ copies of Darwin's "Origin of Species",
a title which any library could and should have.  We were
also sent titles with copyrights going back to 1908.  WHY?
We were sent 192 copies of "Timepiece".  Baker & Taylor
must really like this one - or have lots of leftovers.........
that we paid for.

We still  are missing many bestsellers from 1996.  Young
Adults got only 5 of their 1996 "best books for Young Adults".
But we got lots of series romances. Most of the requests
sent in with our guidelines May 1, 1996, have not been
purchased.  Is this because they cost more than $5.99?
**************************************************************
CONTINUED IN PART IV