Library staff practicing censorship

Public library people: how would your library handle a case where staff members check items out to themselves to avoid putting an item they dislike on the shelf?

I've stumbled on evidence that two children's librarians have been checking out a copy of an LGBT-themed picture book since last October, keeping the item until they get a system-generated bill, then checking it in and out again. I see this as an egregious violation of library ethics, but could management consider it a disciplinary matter? If you did this in your library, would you be written up?

Maybe the easiest way around their plan is to place holds on the books -- assuming the system doesn't allow checkouts for items with holds -- and reducing their privileges so they can't override or delete the holds.

As a librarian, I find their behavior unethical. Personally, I find their behavior abhorrent. However, if there aren't library policies in place to defend against this type of behavior, what real recourse is there?

You could always play dumb and report that the book is so popular that it is always out on loan, which is surely grounds for celebration, and also grounds for a duplicate copy to meet the demand.

>3 Cynfelyn: This.

>3 Cynfelyn: That is wonderfully devious. Maybe several copies need to be ordered. Heh.

I like the devious suggestions!

On a practical level, though, I think whether it is a disciplinary matter depends on your employee handbook/policy book. I think it certainly is worth a discussion with the employees. If they have truly have a problem with the book, they can register a complaint about it just like the average citizen can.

As a Children's Services Manager, I view this as a serious breach of library ethics and values. I would certainly be counseling the staff members involved and tracking their future actions. I would also worry that they are creating an environment that could be uncomfortable for patrons who see themselves in those books. Their actions are completely unacceptable in a public library.

Does your library have a general policy about what kind of books are available to patrons? For example, my library is signed on to the ALA's Library Bill of Rights and also has its own Right to Read statement extending that and has a public Materials Selection Policy that affirms that we buy and make available materials representing many viewpoints.

If your library has something like that, your librarians are probably in violation of that even if there's nothing explicit in employee policies. (At the very least, it sounds like you need to do a training for your staff about it.)

If your library *doesn't* have that, it sounds like you should look into getting one.

(I bet it does, though, if your staffers thought they needed to be devious instead of just complaining to the board.)

Are you managing the employees? If not, I would say it's definitely worth mentioning to their supervisor, whether there's a policy about it or not.

Also, if your library doesn't allow patrons to immediately return and re-check-out books, staff probably aren't allow to either unless it's for a specific job-related purpose, so they're probably at least violating that.

> 1 CasualFriday

Depending on how you "stumbled on evidence" you could be in violation of your own policies on patron privacy.

Just something to consider.

>9 manatree: Which would argue for >3 Cynfelyn:.

>9 manatree: It is hard for me to imagine a patron privacy policy that forbids staff members from looking for, or talking to other staff members about, circulation patterns that reveal possible violations of other library policies.

(for example: it would be a violation of privacy policy for me to gossip about how a certain theoretically straight dude sure is checking out a lot of books with buff shirtless men on the covers. It would not be a violation of privacy policy to look for people who are checking out a lot of books with buff shirtless men on the covers so that the staff can try to figure out who is stealing all of the covers that have buff shirtless men on them. NOT THAT WE HAD TO DO THAT OR ANYTHING.)

So: if you told the staff members' families that they sure had been checking out a lot of pro-lgbt books, that (while it might be very satisfying) would probably be violating the privacy policy. Telling other library staff in private that you think they are using checkouts to censor the collection, possibly in violation of policy, would not.

....posting about it on LT might be a violation though admittedly.

>10 davidgn:

Or, you know, stop violating the policy.

>12 cpg: Any policy violation that may or may not potentially have taken place on anyone's part does not detract from the simple fact that there is a book that is always circulating and therefore requires additional copies. (fin).

This reminds me of the case of librarians who created a fake reader to check out books they didn't want to see culled.

See:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/lake/os-chuck-finley-lake-library-fake-reade...

In that case, it seems—it seems to me, anyway—that the villain was a inflexible weeding system. But opinions differ, as indeed may the facts. (I haven't seen a good follow-up that identified the problem more exactly.) But as I said, my sympathies are with librarians who make informed, individual decisions about what shouldn't be weeded, as against a system that weeds by a general rule.

It reminds me, but my sympathies lie elsewhere. Presumably this isn't librarians against an inflexible rule, but librarians who aren't in charge of acquisitions decisions deep-sixing the choices of those who are. It may suggest there's a communication problem. But it suggests to me the librarians are acting unethically, and (I hazard) that they are bigots too.

What to do? I don't know. Some of the concerns are listed above. There are pitfalls here in reader privacy rules, and indeed laws, not to mention the general risk of ratting on a colleague. It's often very hard to fire a librarian, but there are a million ways one librarian can retaliate against another. You'd be in a bad place if you misunderstood the situation--that they were keeping them out for a display, for example.

>14 timspalding: "Staff member" does not always equal "librarian" and while staff members are usually awesome people and great co-workers, they may not care about librarianship ethics. This is of course sidestepping the concept of personal ethics...that's a different discussion, I think. While some (maybe even you) see every employee at a library as "librarian," the people with a Masters/PhD earned the right to that title...the paraprofessional or library assistants, did not earn that right and aren't paid to make librarian-level decisions. Granted work experience can trump a degree just about any day; but those people still aren't librarians.

>9 manatree: thru >13 davidgn: -- >9 manatree: has a point. Patron privacy is patron privacy. Again, unless there are specific policies in place about patron privacy, it's the wild wild west out there. My libraries' (MPOW) don't have written policies; but we do have some technical functions for giving patrons some level of privacy. We don't retain the link between charge transaction and patron identity once an item is returned. However, we do have report level access (as opposed to circulation desk access) to patron current charges. We have that specifically for hunting down outstanding fines/fees (we'd really rather just have that $1k book back, please).

One of my first responsibilities as a new librarian (16 years ago), was to write up a series of library policies...a full set...because MPOW at the time had never had written policies. I'd taken a class in Library Management and policies was one of the focus chapters. You cannot protect your staff or patrons if you do not have the documentation to support your actions.

I'm a firm believer that as library employees it is none of our business WHO is using our resources. It is none of our business WHY someone is using our resources. On a limited basis, it is our business as to how (stealing, damaging, etc.) they are using our resources.

Remove the employee from the situation and ask yourself, are they doing anything that any regular patron is not allowed to do? Can any patron check out a book and renew the item or pay the overdue fee and check the item out again?

Unless this employee is circumventing normal library procedures in order to keep this book(s) checked out I don't see that there is any problem. Did they shadow the item so that it is no longer able to be found by the public in your Library's catalog? Did they remove other patron's requests/holds/recalls on the item? Are they circumventing or overriding the renewal limit on an item? Are they cancelling any overdue fee that they are accruing? These are things that you should be concerning yourself with. Violations of policies and procedures. Not what an employee has checked out or why they are checking it out.

It is not our business to question why a patron that is wearing a Westboro Baptist Church shirt is checking out a Pat Califia book or how many times they check it out. It is not our business to question why someone that 'looks Muslim' is checking out a chemistry book. It is none of our business to question why an employee is checking out ANY book.

I am curious as to how this information came to light in the first place. Was a patron unable to request the book? Did other books of a similar theme disappear or become damaged? The original poster mentioned system generated bills. Do all bills receive such scrutiny? Fishing around for information on who is checking out any book is a dangerous, and in my opinion, unethical practice.

For what it's worth, these are my thoughts as a general rank and file employee. I'm not a librarian, but I sometimes play one on TV. ;)

>16 manatree: From what you're saying, we go back to >3 Cynfelyn: and the library just needs another copy.

>17gilroy ">16 manatree: manatree: From what you're saying, we go back to >3 Cynfelyn: Cynfelyn: and the library just needs another copy."

Not necessarily. It appears that while this book is always checked out, it has only been checked out by two users. There doesn’t appear to be a waiting list. Does any book that only two people use warrant a second copy? As long as any third patron is able to find this book in the catalog and place a request/hold/recall on this book and check it out. I would not purchase a second copy.

While I’m not a librarian, I am heavily involved with our collection development, including purchases. My two main criteria for purchases are content value to the collection and patron needs. I knowingly buy books that I know won’t be popular with the patrons because it adds content value to our collection. I am not going to buy a second copy of a book, no matter how much content value it adds to our collection, unless there is a very heavy patron demand for the book. Two people is not my idea of a heavy patron demand. I don’t have the budget to buy one copy for each patron.

>18 manatree: Nope. Not saying this is a mass charge on the book.

Though honestly, saying something like "Hey, this book is always checked out." might trigger research into is it needing another copy or do they need to research who has it so they can have it shelved.

However, it would be telling if it was again checked out by the same two people over and over, and never allowed to be shelved. Especially if they are employees.

Something similar happened at a library I worked at. There was a LGBT picture book, Heather has two mommies, and several times I found it hidden in the back workroom. A staff member must have taken umbrage with the contents thought it was okay to censor this book.
I just put it back in it's rightful place on the shelf (I think I even daringly put it on the display area on the top of the shelving bay rather then spine out) and felt bad about working there with someone who would do that. I never found out who did it.

>20 wifilibrarian: wifilibrarian

Now I would consider that incident to be a form of censorship as hiding it prevents patron access to the book. I hope you also issued a staff memo regarding the situation. Staff members continually checking it out is not censorship in my opinion, provided patrons can still find it in the catalog and place a request/hold/recall on the item.

>21 manatree: Staff members continually checking it out is not censorship in my opinion,

Rubbish. How many children use the library catalog? For them, if the book isn't on the shelf it might as well not be there.

Why not promote Banned Books Week at your library, using this situation as a constructive example?

"Staff member" does not always equal "librarian"

Indeed, and CasualFriday called them "staff members," but in the second paragraph, s/he made it clear they were librarians:

"I've stumbled on evidence that two children's librarians have been checking out a copy of an LGBT-themed picture book since last October, keeping the item until they get a system-generated bill, then checking it in and out again. I see this as an egregious violation of library ethics, but could management consider it a disciplinary matter? If you did this in your library, would you be written up?"

>jjwilson61
I agree. It's no different than keeping books behind the desk so people have to ask for them. It is a deliberate action on the part of library staff to limit availability of a book for patrons. They might not be violating the letter of library policies, but they are definitely violating the spirit. ALA is clear that Freedom to Read applies to children as well as adults.

If I had a nickel for every time a kid says "I'll just wait for it to come back," when I ask if they want me to place a hold, I'd be rich.

In my opinion there are two main issues at play here.

1) Are the employees following the policies (both employee and patron) in place?

2) Patron privacy.

If they are following the rules and policies in place, then their patron privacy trumps our disdain for their personal beliefs. Who and why a book is being checked out is none of our business. It doesn’t matter if the patron is an employee or not. I would still like to know how this information was discovered. Fishing for information on who is checking out any book is a very dangerous and deplorable thing.

I think that there are several solutions to explore that don’t violate patron privacy. What would you do with any book that is always checked out? What would you do with any other book that you think patrons should be aware of?

• Like others have suggested, buy another copy of the book.
• Perhaps make one copy non-circulating so that it is always on the shelf.
• Photocopy the book covers of popular books and make a display so others know about them.
• Does the library have a newsletter? Do you have a list of recommended books?
• Take a look at the circulation policy. Maybe change the loan period or renewal limit on children’s books. Maybe have a more restrictive renewal policy for employees. One that still ensures their privacy.
• Market your waiting list in a way that is more attractive to kids. Is there a way you can make it fun or like a game? A personal wish list? Maybe they get a ‘special, collectable’ bookmark when their requested book arrives.

>26 manatree: But, you're acting like librarians never ever look at patrons records or have the right to. The OP says that they 'stumbled onto evidence'. That could be that a kid wanted the book and so the OP looked it up in the catalog, now, most ILS's have a way that then if it says that it's out you can go to the patron's record, see how long it's been out, see how many times it's been renewed by them, get their info (if they were a regular patron) to call them if it's way overdue. I've done all these things many, many, many times, and there's absolutely no rule against looking at any patron's record, whether they're a worker at the library or not.

You say you're not a librarian, and it sounds like you're not a forward facing librarian but in purchasing/tech services etc. perhaps in a library or somewhere else??, well, I am on the desk, from the Ref to Childrens to Circ every day of the week practically, and if I suddenly can't look up a patron, ever ever ever again, well, then we should just shut down the library. Now, would I ever tell anyone else what someone took out, or had out, etc. etc.? No, of course not. (And so for the OP to come on here and tell us, yes, that gets a little sticky indeed)

I think you misunderstand what patron privacy is. What I just explained, not disseminating the information past the staff, THAT is patron privacy, not staying out of every record ever and forever. And, yes, on more than one occasion I will talk to fellow staff member about a book someone has out that needs to be recalled or has been destroyed, or if there's a patron who's a disturbance and we need his parent's phone number, etc. etc. I'm in patron records, even at the Reference desk, all day every day. Should I hum and close my eyes while I put on a hold so that I can't see the other books he has out?

As for the situation here, honestly, I don't give a shit if the employees are following the letter of the policy or not because what they're doing is wrong. Wrong as fucking hell, so wrong that me, a person who almost never swears is incensed enough to be swearing because what they're doing is despicable and goes against everything it means to be a librarian.

So, personally, if I found that one or two of my co-workers were doing this, if I could (i.e. if one of them wasn't my boss) I would go to my boss and bring it up, if I couldn't do that I would go to the Asst. Director or Director and bring it up. I don't know what would happen next, and if the librarians wanted to retaliate against me that would be on them, personally, I get along with everyone in all the libraries where I've worked, so, these two librarians could sure try to make my life hell, but I'd still report them.

Public libraries are barely hanging on by a thread these days, and something like this, two librarians taking it into their own hands to decide for the public what's 'good' and what's 'bad' plays into the hands of all those who want to shut us down, board us up, and have everyone stuck buying books from Amazon.

I apologize if this seems too strident a post, but, my dander is up. There is enough crap going on in the US these days with authoritarianism and such that we in the library profession have to do better than ever for our patrons. Do you think that I like finding Donald Trump books for patrons? Don't you think that I would just love, love, love to hide them (or burn them all). The answer is yes, I'd like to do all that. But, I don't, because as our society gets less and less free thankfully people still have the right to take out whatever they want, whatever they feel they need to from most public libraries even if I don't 'approve' of it. And these two librarians holding back a book that could help a little kid understand his or her family, that could help a kid understand someone else's family, maybe not bully them, maybe be friends with them? That's the lowest of the low.

>27 DanieXJ:

As a library patron: thank you very much, Danie.

>27DanieXJ: No I am not a librarian, I am just a staff member with 25 years (this January) front line experience in an academic library. My desk is in direct view of our service desk. I interact with our patrons every day. If my lack of MLS/MLIS credentials disqualifies me from having an opinion is some eyes, I don't care.

Like I said, I would like to know how this information came to light. If it came about because it appeared that policies were being broken, then fine. If they are breaking policy, handle it like any other employee policy violation. However, if it was some fishing expedition, it is just wrong. If this information was accidentally discovered and there is no policy being broken you should do nothing to the employees. The information is forbidden fruit.

Do I like what the employees are doing? F@%& No! Do I agree with their assumed beliefs or reasons for doing it? F@%& No! Would I want to hang out with these people on my own time? F@%& no! However, these F@%s still have their right to patron privacy just like anyone else. Likewise, I need to make sure that my disdain for their beliefs does not impact my professionalism. Address it through policies and your normal means of running the library.

Here’s an example from my past where I ended up terminating a student employee. The Engineering Library noticed a pattern of three course reserve books being checked out for the allotted 2hr loan period only to be discharged at our location 30 minutes later after which the books would remain missing until showing up in the Engineering book drop a few days later. They reported this up the chain and I was asked to look into it. It turned out that one of our student employees, an engineering student was checking the books out before he came to work at our location where he would discharge them during his shift and keep them for a few days. I let him go immediately. There was a problem that appeared to be linked to breaking policies, we looked intuit and dealt with it. I believe that in that case, we were within our right to investigate who was using those books.

>29 manatree: I've stumbled on evidence
Okay, so this exact quote from >1 CasualFriday: (the initial post) says this wasn't done as a fishing expedition. At least, that's how it reads to me.

Talking to my librarian fiance, she says finding things like this is possible just by checking the (seriously) overdue book listing. Because you have to follow the trail to determine if the book was lost, destroyed, or just misplaced. And then, yes, policy must be checked to see if it's a breach. Then the proper process of management must be enacted.

If it does prove to be nothing against policy, then perhaps the ethics of the situation should be discussed during the yearly review.

I realize it's easy to assume that it's legit, versus something not. But can we take a breath and treat it as a hypothetical?

>29 manatree: I think what's happening is that I'm addressing the background and the broader ethics of what they're doing, and I think you're addressing the specifics, and I'll leave it there. I said my piece, you said your piece.

>28 LolaWalser: I hate Donald Trump, I hate Anne Coulter, I would rather have my nails pulled out every day for a year than read their books, but also I would go to bat for any patron who wanted those and couldn't get them until my voice was raw and I was tired as hell.

Every librarian is different, but, that's how I see librarianship. When I walk into the library I don't have an opinion on politics and issues of various sorts. Period. But, as I said, that's just me.

If I had used Mein Kampf as the example could the argument have been over in the thread? ;)

Here's what ALA lists as the state-level reader privacy statute in PA:

Records of the following institutions which relate to the circulation of library materials and contain the names or other personally identifying information of users of the materials shall be confidential and may not be made available to anyone except by a court order in a criminal proceeding:

(1) The State Library.
(2) A local library established or maintained under the provisions of this chapter.
(3) The library of a university, college or educational institution chartered by the Commonwealth.
(4) The library of a public school.
(5) A library established and maintained under a law of this Commonwealth.
(6) A branch reading room, deposit station or agency operated in connection with a library described in this section.

Honestly, I don't see anything in there about intention--that if a librarian stumbles upon something they may then treat it as not falling under the statute.

Does it apply to checkouts by staff? I suspect it does, if they undertook the action as patrons. Surely none would assert that just because someone works at a library, their checkouts lack privacy protections. But if they used staff facilities or powers in some way to do this, I think you could argue it was a staff matter, much as the librarians who created fake patrons was a staff matter.

>27 DanieXJ: Expresses much of my own sentiment. At the same time, I'm pretty sure nobody wants to see a boomerang effect here. The OP should be careful to attend to ass-covering in determining how best to proceed.

>33 davidgn: Yes. I can say all that I did and I do believe that in the same situation I would report what was going on to someone higher up, but, you're right, the OP has to do what it feels right to do in their organization. Either going to someone they trust, or going the other route and requesting that another copy be bought because the first copy is just always out and never back on the shelf.

We all have opinions here and can debate it until the cows come home, but, we're not in the OP's exact shoes and don't know where they work and how it's like. Diversity in the library is important, the OP keeping their job is just as valid and important as well.

It's clear how the information came to light: Neither staff member would return the book on time. The system generated a bill each time. There's no privacy violation under that circumstance.

If each had returned the book on time, then the circulation system wouldn't have created a log entry of who borrowed the book.

>35 a-h-k: I don't know about others ILSes, but, in the one I use, that's not quite true. When the book is checked out it's on the person's card, yes, but, it's also on the item record, and it stays on the item record until at least 2 other people check it out and then that first person's name is no longer in the system as far as staff members can see.

I could have seen a kid asking for it (or a parent), and the library staff member going into the book's item record to see when it was due, or if it was overdue if they could recall it, and there being the two librarians names as the last two who had it out (and that it was overdue).

I think my son's school library must have had something like that. I'm fairly sure that he and I were the only ones to borrow a certain series that we loved, and each of us borrowed the books about once a year over several years. Just before he graduated the librarian told me they were getting rid of them, and offered them to me before putting them in the general sale bin. Um, Yes! Please! So a certain amount of librarians seeing records can be useful.

I think it could be argued that patron privacy is not about staff seeing the data, but about staff seeing the data and acting on it in ways outside of their normal course of business. It would not, for example, be wrong for staff to see that someone took "Divorce for Dummies" out. It would be wrong to tell their spouse.

>38 timspalding: Or tell anyone on staff. Or tell their neighbor. Etc.

That's how PHI (personal health information) is handled in (some) hospitals. There's some stuff you are going to see in the course of your day. Sensitive information or otherwise. It's your responsibility to NOT SHARE that information.

This case is about figuring out why a title is constantly out-overdue-out-overdue-etc; therefore, sharing those details with the appropriate staff is important. I've defended patron privacy on a professional level. The campus police officer even threatened me; but I stuck to my policy and my directors backed me 100%. That's why written policies are so important.

This may well be a staff-issue. If someone uses a system qua staff, then different rules apply. But it's not just a question of whether or not staff are allowed to look at confidential information in the course of their job.

A similar situation to the one described by the OP is contained in the book True Stories of Censorship Battles in America's Libraries edited by Valerie Nye and Kathy Barco. In the chapter entitled "Well-Intentioned Censorship is Still Censorship", authors Ron Critchfield (library director) and David N. Powell (head of circulation) discuss their experience at the Jessamine County (KY) Public Library, where a circulation associate repeatedly checked out and hid The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: Black Dossier by Alan Moore because she considered the graphic novel to be obscene. Another circulation associate removed a patron hold on the item. The two higher-ups monitored the circulation status of the item for months before taking action. Both employees were terminated for "exercising censorship and restricting the freedom of others on the basis of their personal beliefs" (p. 9).

The incident caused an uproar in the community. The prevailing narrative became that of two "Christian women" (the terminated employees) taking a "valiant stand ...to protect the children of the community from pornographic materials". Many citizens called for the removal of the book and other offensive material from the library's collection. The library director and other library employees were subject to personal attacks and even threats of bodily harm. The library responded with a "public awareness blitz that emphasized community assets of the public library" and an informational brochure that explained the facts about intellectual freedom and parental responsibilities. The article was a little vague about how the library finally got the story to go away, but it seems that the fired employees stayed fired.

I hope this helps.

>41akblanchard:The example that you cite made it clear that the staff member(s) used their status as an employee to circumvent library policies when they removed a patron hold on the item. It also mentions that they hid the item.

In the original scenario, there was no mention of policy being broken.

That's disappointing to hear. When the Patriot Act came about, with the potential to threaten the privacy of library patrons, a number of libraries took the position that they simply wouldn't retain circulation records linking borrowing to a specific patron once the book was returned (and fines paid or missing copy paid for).

Your library should consider patron privacy from adverse police snooping.

If the book were returned and fine, if any, were paid, I'd like to know why the circulation record specific to the patron needs to continue to live in the circulation database.

There was a large public library in a nearby suburb. I had reciprocal borrowing privileges. They had a book I wanted to read. I noticed that they had recently installed a video security system designed to record transactions with every circulation clerk. I thought that was outrageous. I left without borrowing any books and have never returned.

There was an interesting article in yesterday's newspaper. A 3 year old girl found a book about a gay pride parade in the children's collection of her public library. She asked her mother about it. The mother thought the book was inappropriate for children. She lobbied the library board to consider whether the book should remain part of the collection. The library board voted 6 to 1 in favor of retaining the book.

150 people signed up to speak at the board meeting; most wanted the book to remain in the collection.

The book's been getting a great deal of circulation of late.

On the publisher's Web site, the author was quoted as saying he wanted to illustrate drag queens, guys in leather, political signs, dykes on bikes, everything you'd see at the parade. He wanted to teach children to be as authentic as they can be.

Yeah, that's propaganda aimed at young children, but I don't want to second guess the children's librarian's selection. I think the girl's parent could have just discussed the book with her daughter without attempting to have the book withdrawn. What happened to using it as an opportunity for a teachable moment?

Pretty much every book in a children's section is meant to teach young children what is normal. Sometimes the propaganda is "sharing is good" or "everyone celebrates Christmas" or "the dentist is not scary" or "all apples are red", sometimes it's "people who aren't just like you are still people". They all belong in the library! If people think "all apples are red" is pure fact and "gay pride parades exist" isn't, I don't know what to say.

And none of the scenarios described above require any more tracking from the library than "notice something seems wrong, start paying attention to what is currently checked out over time."

I like that!

I thought I was replying directly to another comment. My comment was to one of the very early comments about playing dumb and suggesting the need for more copies.

>47 LibrarianKowaczek: If you put in > and the number of the message you are replying to, we can see what comment you mean.

>45 a-h-k: This isn't a threaded forum, we have no earthly freaking clue who you're responding to. If you want to respond to a specific message in the thread, use the carrot > and then the # of the message you're responding to.

And, honestly, did you ask the circ desk about the camera? Librarians in the past have literally been attacked. Libraries are great places for drug users these days to get high, I could go on and on, but I won't. Did you ask any staff member at all why the camera was there, raise your concerns with them, or did with your prejudices just presume you knew exactly why it was there, knew exactly how everything worked and stormed out?? (And, this is gonna be hard to hear >44 a-h-k:, but, my guess is that they don't miss you at that library very much...)

>49 DanieXJ:

Does it occur to you that >45 a-h-k: might not have been responding to a specific post, but to the discussion generally?

>44 a-h-k: Another possibility to consider, rather than watching the patron transactions, is they were having trouble with internal theft and the cameras were watching the cash till to see who might be pocketing cash. This is a common practice in all banks now. Video to CYA.

Also possible it was to protect the librarians from people who go nutz (as stated in >49 DanieXJ:).

A camera security system could be for many, MANY different reasons. Assumptions lead to misinformation, which leads to the dark side...

>45 a-h-k:

I have that book (This Day in June). I have read it to my four-year-old. He loves it. There is nothing inappropriate in it whatsoever - nothing about what the Pride Parade is about, and less skin showing than a book set at a swimming pool. It's describing a parade, just like one about a Chinese New Year parade might.

>53 lorax:

"nothing about what the Pride Parade is about" — Really?! Nothing at all? Not even some vague message about all families being good, or people being equal or something?

>53 lorax: & >54 timspalding: I would say "nothing about what the Pride Parade is about" is not accurate. You can see illustrations (and some text) here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVZakD63n7g

>1 CasualFriday: In my library, staff members have fine-free privileges, but the personnel manual states that employees are expected to return materials within the regular loan period, and if the privilege is abused, it can be rescinded. I suspect that a case like the one you are describing would be considered abuse, even if they were technically renewing the book and checking it out again each time it came due.

Also, in my library, we sign a statement saying that we agree to abide by the ALA code of Ethics. Item VII of that document addresses this issue: "We distinguish between our personal convictions and professional duties and do not allow our personal beliefs to interfere with fair representation of the aims of our institutions or the provision of access to their information resources."

The traditional way of handling this, based on what I've seen in libraries I've worked in, is the passive-aggressive one: hypothetically, you would report it to your supervisor (assuming that you are not the supervisor of the employees in question), and the issue would make its way up the chain of command. Eventually, all staff would receive a memo about not abusing borrowing privileges, or a memo reminding all staff about the ALA Code of Ethics document we signed. It might also make its way into a staff development day training module on professional ethics, which everyone would hate and grumble about. (I'm being a little tongue-in-cheek here, but nobody likes confrontation, and I think this is particularly true of many library staff members.)

I do think that the supervisor of these librarians should find a policy-based way of addressing the issue with these staff members. I see it as a breach of professional ethics.

>55 lesmel:

As I said, I own the book, and have read it multiple times.

The text is purely descriptive, along the lines of "voices chanting, doggies panting" and "clad in leather, perfect weather". Nothing about equality, or families, or love, appears in the text. There are illustrations showing people kissing lightly, and carrying signs along the lines of "Love not Hate". Any explanation that this is anything other than a bunch of people who like playing dress-up and enjoy rainbows is up to the reader to convey to the child. There is a fairly extensive "note to parents" at the end, explaining the history of a bunch of elements (like the women on motorcycles on the first page, the text for which is "engines roaring").

In 1969, my elementary school library had the book, The Time-Life Book of World Religions, that a parent tried to have banned from the library. It discussed other religions, specifically non-Christian religions. The parent was quite insistent that it didn't belong in an elementary school library.

She lost that battle, but went on to get elected to the school board.

I was in many of the same classes as her daughter. I felt sorry for her & her brothers.

How did I know about this? My mother volunteered in the school library.

So, censorship has been going on in the schools in one way or another for a very long time.

>44 a-h-k: I'd like to know why the circulation record specific to the patron needs to continue to live in the circulation database

As we have seen in the thread, "Strange bookmarks", people use a variety of things. I've found assignments, pictures, etc. in returned books. I use the check out history to return them.

Way back to message >29 manatree:, please don't call yourself just a staff member. You are an important person in the operation of your library and don't you forget it!!!

>24 timspalding: We have had issues in our school district with library clerks calling themselves and answering to the title of librarian. The credentialed and degreed librarians were offended (and rightfully so). Now the district has done away with all librarians (an issue for another day). It's hard to remind 1800+ students I'm not a librarian even though I am doing the job they used to do as well as my own library tech duties. I have a nameplate with my position right in front. If they insist on calling me a librarian at this point, who am I to argue? Most people who don't work in a library view all the staff manning desks, shelving books, etc. as librarians and are not aware of the distinction of different titles.

DanieXJ - your post was a joy to read, go you!! Let it all out! I'm with you! :)

In one of the middle school libraries that I oversee, there were 2 special ed aides who would do the same thing with Guns: A Visual History. This is a very popular book in this rural, hunting and camo wearing community. I had to let them know that there were holds on that book and it was against library policy to keep another student from checking out a book. Only the student's parent could request that.

>49 DanieXJ: DanieXJ It's not a matter of prejudice that I didn't want my privacy invaded. I didn't storm out; I didn't create a scene. I left the library by walking out the front door. You're the one who made unwarranted assumptions here. I did ask about the camera and was told "There is a security issue" which did not explain why I should have had my transaction recorded on video.

They don't miss a library patron who didn't wish to have his borrowing transaction recorded? Well, they get to have their opinion and I get to have my opinion. As cooperating with the surveillance state was optional in this case, I chose not to cooperate.

>52 gilroy: gilroy The video camera was pointed at the patron. It was not in a position to monitor the circulation clerk. As far as a general video surveillance system in case of "people who go nutz", that's not logical. You would want security cameras throughout the library, not at that one highly visible location.

Anyway, video surveillance doesn't protect; it just records. Later, it might be used as evidence, but cannot prevent anything bad from happening in the first place.

>63 a-h-k:

video surveillance doesn't protect; it just records. Later, it might be used as evidence, but cannot prevent anything bad from happening in the first place.

In fact, it can. People who are aware that they are being recorded are less likely to behave badly.

>64 lilithcat: Indeed. Which is why plenty of small shops without the budget put up fake cameras as a deterrent.

>63 a-h-k:, 64, et al: Actually, just an image of eyes looking at people causes most people to behave more honestly.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-illusion-of-being-observed-ca...

Human psychology is really interesting.

We had a computer tech that would check out one of our unused, clunky video recorders and mount it on a tripod in the computer lab so the kids would think they were being recorded. Little did they know the camera didn't work.
In a middle school library we had one of those convex mirrors in the corner. Kids thought that there was a camera in there. What ever!

>62 a-h-k: a-h-k I'm sorry that you had such an unpleasant experience asking staff about the cameras at your library. Sometimes the front desk staff don't even know the bigger picture and couldn't answer you question with more detail.

I work at a library that uses security cameras throughout and have had occasion to view camera footage. We, too, have a camera over the check out desk. But I can assure you that the resolution on the footage is just good enough to identify people if you get a clear shot. We can not read titles on the books and certainly not information on the check out screen.

Yes, cameras record information. However, having cameras running 24/7 generates a lot of data, more than we can possibly store for any length of time. That means the cameras are overwriting previous data within a few days at most. The information is not retained. It is only viewed by police or if someone files a Freedom of Information Act request. And even then if they are not quick enough, the footage will no longer be available.

Security cameras are definitely a deterrent. I have also witnessed them lead to a return of a stolen wallet. While looking at the area where the wallet had been taken from a computer cubicle, I rather loudly let the victim know they could use our phone to call the police and the police could view the video footage to see who had taken it. Within a few minutes, the wallet reappeared at another spot and was turned in with all contents intact.

It's a sad fact that security cameras can be necessary. But they are used to try to identify vandals, thieves, and other criminal acts. Libraries do not track your transactions by video. If we wanted to track your borrowing habits, we wouldn't purge your borrowing history from our computer systems after materials are returned. But we do. For your protection.