The Good Library Blog

Well, I think many people see Public LIbraries as closed to non-Public Library people, whether they are qualified librarians or not. Certainly a colleague of mine felt this when going for jobs.

Is that how it should be? Isn't it amazing what we have found out on this blog?

Oh, I think many people knew this already Tim. I don't think it's a universal problem, and the same problem has been talked about in regard to health libraries too.

Pete

But we say that public libraries ought to have young staff- so that young people feel at home; and that they should have staff from "diverse" backgrounds- for the same kind of reason.

You imply that it's ok for librarians to recruit their friends with no regard for the public need.

I'm sorry, I don't agree-- and when you say "many people knew this already" -- I think you must mean that many librarians knew it; I'm certain that the public didn't. They would assume that you recruit the best people you can find.

Any chance that this is just who you know and not what you know? For instance, when I worked in a health science library there was a nice little local consortium that met quarterly, we shared materials and customers and helped one another. If you know someone that would be good for the position that you have and can bring them over, why work so hard to find someone new?

(Of course, I know the reasons why to find new folks, but maybe it's laziness and not a conspiracy?)

From the other side of the pond,

Cindy

I implied nothing like that Tim. I was reporting a known problem, which yes may only be know in the library world (and that of the many non-librarians who know librarians) not endorsing the practice. I didn't mention 'friends', or any sort of nepotism, nor did I remotely hint ( much less applaud the idea) that the problem was the recruitment of 'friends.'

Rather, the issue is the recruitment solely of people with public library experience, possibly over candidates of greater quality. I don't like it any more than you do, where it happens. By saying it's not a universal practice, I mean it doesn't happen in all public libraries.

Acknowledging something exists is not the same as endorsing it. When this issue was discussed in Update, I wrote to support the anonymous letter writer who had raised the issue there. Sadly, that letter wasn't printed... but others, from both perspectives, were.

Whatever excuse one likes to make this is "Croneyism" of the kind we find distasteful in politicians and others.

As so often, what goes under the name of "public service" in public libraries- turns out to be the opposite. So often we find the pursuit of private protection, incompetent administration and disdain for the best interests of the general public. More than that we find that those who should be showing an example and leadership in rejecting these practices, spend their time defending them. It is a sad story.

Well, we may find any or all of these things, but I still don't support them ;) Much less defend them. Again, saying that something exists is not the same as defending it. And as I say, in other fora I have spoken against recruitment based narrowly on sector experience, which is the issue raised; not the broader issue you hint at elsewhere, which is employing only qualified librarians.

At its most basic, the issue is- 'experience; is this more important than other factors?' In most areas of recruitment, all other things being equal, relevant experience would be a key factor.

To be croneyism, the recruiters would have to know the candidates, and no-one has said that. Indeed, to suggest that library administrators employ only those they know is a gross calumny.

Indeed they may only employ people with previous public library experience, which is the issue alluded to by a colleague of mine when she was going for jobs. And if that is the case, then that *may* be a problem. Of course, the candidates may just be the right people for the jobs and go on to do a good job.

I went for public library jobs and didn't get them. I am self-aware enough to accept that there was someone better for the post in all cases.

And to clarify; I am a public library patron, part of the 'public.' I work in a college library. It is not my 'official' place to defend or criticise public library practices, but I do so as a user of their services. And generally speaking I am happy with that service.
Tim, why no mention of the good news from the East Riding of Yorkshire? They have increased loans and active users, and the bookstock it seems, as well as improving services.
Birmingham also conducted an extensive consultation program for its Birchfield library regeneration; hardly showing disdain for the public. Yes, the proof of the pudding and all that, but the council and its librarians *are* working with their community to develop a library that will work for them.

I've also just been turned down for a library post after replying to an ad for f/t, p/t library assistants citywide. It really makes me wonder about cronyism because, as specified in my professional suicide notes (Gordian Knot et al), nothing I do ever seems to be enough. I really did restore part of Scotland's literary heritage by fixing up a private library, and I then transferred those hard-won skills (I have a learning disability) to law librarianship. I never bumped into the Dickensian practices which astounded Tim, leading me to the uncomfortable conclusion that said practices are in the library establishment itself. I'm also all for a "middle gear" in libraries and actually published an article for the Scottish Law Librarians Group three years ago to (theoretically...) try and keep everyone happy, but it's no use being reasonable when you're gazing up at an impregnable monolith full of cozy little relationships so, once again, let us march on London, moon CILIP and string up a few MLA representatives! Come on, it'll be fun!

Middle gears only work where there is a will for them to work. Even if MLA et al were to be out of the picture, could professional librarians and Tim and some of the correspondents on this blog (say) work happily together, when they seem to hold them *all* responsible for the ills of libraries? When they cannot imagine how the 'constraints of local government' work? (Money for one; law for another; the political complexion of councils.) There is a line between explanation and excuse, I know, but too often it is assumed that librarians are always on the wrong side.

I've just taken a part time position as a public library assistant, the first I applied for, with no previous public library experience. Based on my anecdotal evidence, getting a job in public libraries is easy-peasy!