Comments on: AADL Acts on Communications, Facilities it's like being there Tue, 16 Sep 2014 04:56:38 +0000 hourly 1 By: Timothy Durham Timothy Durham Sat, 02 Feb 2013 14:17:17 +0000 (#9)I think getting rid of paper books would be short-sighted and regretted sooner rather than later. Not to mention the lack of research on brain effects and retention due to reading on computer screens:

[link 1]
[link 2]

…this is placing a $100+ barrier between readers and books. Then forced onto the endless upgrade cycles by the companies that sell them. How many iterations of the iPod have there been in 15 years? Can you even still use your first iPod? Probably not. They also need steady access to internet and electricity to function, another barrier.

Not saying people shouldn’t get their books that way, just saying you should not force everyone to get their reading that way. Imagine that manufacturing and supporting these e-readers may not last past the end of the cheap oil era. Not to mention the impending shortage of the precious metals required AND the environmental implications of their manufacture (which are significant).

But once you destroy the books, they are gone for good. Libraries are one of the last refuges from full dependence on the corporate world. You can still read a book for free thanks to libraries.

Fahrenheit 451? As Bruce Springsteen said, “That stuff is never as far away as you think it is.”

By: Lyn Davidge Lyn Davidge Thu, 31 Jan 2013 20:04:02 +0000 @ Board Committees: Communications, referring to comments by Margaret Leary: “… the idea to form the [Communications] committee … is a recognition that the AADL need[s] to do a better job of communicating its work to the public. The work might require hiring a consultant to help formulate a communications strategy.”

It seems to me that the Library already communicates quite forcefully and often the work it feels should impress the public and which the public should unquestioningly support. What the Library and the Board do much less effectively is actively listen to the public and make it as easy as possible for the public to offer input. Holding Board meetings in branches is a good, if modest, start. Adding a second citizen comment period at the end of Board meetings (as I proposed to the Board in November) would cost nothing and provide the Board and Administration with immediate feedback. It does not require paying a consultant or devising a “communications strategy” to summon up some other common sense ways to convey to the taxpayers a willingness to listen, learn, and heed their concerns. One good brainstorming session, followed by robust discussion of the best options in an open Board meeting, followed by immediate implementation should do it!

By: Eric Eric Tue, 29 Jan 2013 17:33:14 +0000 Barnes & Noble have just announced plans to start closing stores due to the shift from paper to digital books, story on today’s Yahoo news page. The library should follow in their path, start downsizing, the main questions being how fast and how far, like to complete closing in five years or perhaps down to a few residual functions, such as local archives, in ten? Perhaps downtown should be kept as a Delonis extension but don’t bother to renovate or even repair, that clientele is used to sleeping under bridges, also pink slip all the librarians, the Delonis set isn’t there to do research.

By: Vivienne Armentrout Vivienne Armentrout Sat, 26 Jan 2013 16:01:01 +0000 Until the Chronicle began covering AADL board meetings, this body operated in obscurity, with very little public notice. Apparently they liked it that way.

I just consulted the minutes of the November 19, 2012 meeting, the last one posted. (There was no December meeting.) These are what are referred to as “action minutes”, barebones reports of actions taken with no discussion reported. The exception was that public comment was reported in full. Thus, without the Chronicle’s coverage, there would be no record of comments and discussion from board members at meetings.

Thank you again for this reporting. It is a real service.

By: Alan Goldsmith Alan Goldsmith Sat, 26 Jan 2013 13:59:42 +0000 If the Board wants this to be an issue moving forward that will color their dealings with the public, then I hope they’ve done a careful costs vs. benefits analysis. Their judgement on the new library building millage would suggest they haven’t always done this in the past. These ‘reasons’ for not recording meetings are the same ones used by folks in the past who are opposed to open and transparent government. They should seriously rethink this issue–it’s not going away.

By: Jim Rees Jim Rees Sat, 26 Jan 2013 03:48:46 +0000 I looked up the Chronicle’s coverage of the April 2011 AADL board meeting. There were several reasons given for not broadcasting the meetings. One is that there is a conflict with the City Council meeting, so the AADL meeting would have to be taped for later broadcast rather than broadcast live. Another was that in 22 years no one had ever asked the library to do this. There were also concerns about quality, scheduling, and the fact that CTN, not AADL, would own the tape. Cost is not an issue. This explanation was from staff, not the board members.

Sorry, Chronicle, if I got any of that wrong. The 2011 meeting coverage is here: [link]

By: Observatory Observatory Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:56:51 +0000 What #1, #2, #3, #4 said.

The blue hairs in the wheelhouse of the taxpayer financed AADL flagship believe they are royalty imbued with powers and navigational charts given by heaven.

Pooh pooh, and tut tut. The AATA crowd still tops them for arrogance and gross mismanagement.

And then we have the Augean Stables of the city council and county government to consider.

Who among is up to the cleaning job? Tis better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.

By: Alan Goldsmith Alan Goldsmith Fri, 25 Jan 2013 16:18:57 +0000 “At the AADL’s May 16, 2011 meeting, board member Nancy Kaplan brought forward a resolution to videotape monthly board meetings for broadcast. It was defeated on a 2-4 vote, with support only from Kaplan and Barbara Murphy. Ed Surovell was absent from that meeting. No trustees spoke about their reasons for voting against it, although board members had discussed it with AADL staff at the board’s April 25, 2011 session.”

If the Library Board wants the support of the community for future projects, they might want to rethink this failure to understand the value of being more open and transparent. A step in that direction would be to broadcast or tape all future Library Board meetings. The fact them seem to continue to stonewall this easy fix with ‘communications’ being a focus is troubling.

By: Eric Eric Fri, 25 Jan 2013 00:15:22 +0000 One problem the library bond proponents have is failure to understand that information storage and distribution is increasingly an online affair. A physical building, whether old, new or renovated is rapidly becoming an anachronism. It might make sense to keep the downtown “library” open as a day warming space for the wonderful Delonis set and other lost souls but why put any money into it or keep toilet paper degreed professionals on the payroll?

By: Vivienne Armentrout Vivienne Armentrout Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:49:17 +0000 Frankly, I consider the AADL’s decision not to broadcast meetings, when they are held in a facility with the capability, to be arrogant and inexcusable. Broadcasting the meetings would presumably also make them accessible via video recording, as are the meetings of virtually every other public body in Ann Arbor.

As the story indicates, the reasoning behind the decision not to make board meetings more accessible was never explained. We are left to draw the conclusion that they do not welcome public scrutiny.