My son Perry is crazy about trains. He always has been. So for us, Christmas will be (again) a snarl of tracks and steam engines and train books and videos.
But it turns out that you don’t have to be three-and-a-half years old to be a train buff.
Johanna Harden, Archivist of our Local History Collection, recently presented me with an information folder on the Royal Gorge/Tennessee Pass Steam Excursion. You might have seen the historic train come puffing through Douglas County this past June. It left Denver and passed through the Royal Gorge and Tennessee Pass on its way to the National Railway Historical Society’s annual meeting in Salt Lake City. The excursion train slowed traffic on I-25 for miles, as people pulled over and waved at the proud Union Pacific #844 steam engine.
Or maybe you missed it. That’s too bad, especially since the Royal Gorge/Tennessee pass route was officially closed on August 23, 1997. No trains are now running on the former D&RGW tracks.
But do not despair. You can step back into time and relive the whole trip -- through video, slides, and human memory -- simply by attending a program on January 11, 1998, at 2 p.m., at the Commissioner’s Hearing Room in the Philip S. Miller Administration Building at 100 Third Street, Castle Rock.
Entitled “Riding the Cushions,” the multi-media presentation is part of our Local History Collection program series 1997-98 (see below for the list of remaining programs). So far, all of our programs have been blessed with extraordinary speakers. “Riding the Cushions” boasts three such speakers, each with a very different view of the excursion. Steve Patterson BNSF locomotive engineer on the Joint Line (which runs just west of the Philip S. Miller Library), was a passenger on the excursion train.
Our second speaker is Stephen A. Lee, Union Pacific Railroad, Manager of Train Operating Practices, is one of two steam locomotive experts in the United States. I’ve read his article “So, you want to run a steam locomotive” (in “Trains,” July 1989) in which he shows the fifty-six (yes,56) valves, gears and switches that make up the nerve center of a steam locomotive. He’ll be discussing the technical side of the trip.
Our third speaker is Eric Sondeen, a lieutenant of the Littleton Fire Department, who worked as a car attendant on the excursion. Lt. Sondeen, like our other two speakers, is also a member of Operation Lifesaver, which seeks to prevent train collisions. The Douglas Public Library District is thus far the only public library in Colorado to invite Operation Lifesaver to give public presentations.
You can bet Perry and I will be there.
Here’s a list of the 3 other Local History Collection programs (also held at 2 p.m. in the same location):
February 8 - “History by Mail:” Douglas County & Colorado Postal History, featuring James Ozment, and Erwin Engert.
March 8 - “Letters Home:” Love Letters to Baby Doe, a soldier’s words to his parents, Lizzie Smith’s first Christmas on West Plum Creek 1872, and more.
May 17 - National Historic Preservation Week 1998 Celebration, A Concert of Civil War Era Music, featuring the Fourth Artillery Regimental Band, For D.A. Russell, Wyoming Territory.
All the programs, sponsored by the Douglas Public Library District’s Local History Collection, are free and open to the public.
For more information, called Johanna Harden at 303-814-0795.
Wednesday, December 24, 1997
Wednesday, December 17, 1997
December 17, 1997 - Cults and New Faiths
I recently received a written complaint about a book called Cults and New Faiths. Published in 1981, it was written by one John Butterworth, editor of a newspaper in Northern England.
For the very first time since I have received such a complaint, I am going to remove the book from our collection. Let me tell you why.
The nature of the complaint was that the information in the book about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was incorrect. The book labeled Mormonism a "cult" and cast aspersions on both its origins and its theology. Also branded cults were Christian Science, Eckankar, Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientology, and others. The term "cult" was never defined. The "new faiths" (also undefined) included Bahai'i, Freemasonry, Rastafarianism, and Transcendental Meditation!
In my formal response, I said that the issue was not whether the views of the author are true. The way I see it, most of what's in print these days is slanted in one direction or another. But the public library is in the business of collecting books, largely the offerings of mainstream publishing houses; it is not in the business of either editing those books or endorsing their contents. We do try, however, to achieve some balance in our coverage of various issues.
An example is the topic of abortion. Some support a woman's right to choose. Others believe that abortion is murder. Hence there are books both for and against abortion, both of which may be found in our collection. The same situation exists for a host of sometimes controversial topics: environmentalism, homosexuality, welfare, evolution, and on and on. In other words, our materials reflect some of the views and biases of the authors now writing on the subjects. The library has neither the means nor the wisdom to "correct" those views. Again, the mission of the public library is not to decide who is right. We reflect the views of our culture, and provide a place for members of the public to examine those views, and make up their own minds.
In the area of religion, it is even more difficult to get at the "truth." Butterworth, an English newspaper editor, holds up various faiths to his own yardstick -- some form of Christianity, although he never says which denomination. According to that yardstick, every other faith is found wanting. Such a view might be extremely offensive not only to Christian Scientists and Mormons, but also to the Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim reader.
But just because a view is offensive doesn't mean that it's wrong. It doesn't mean that it's right, either. It is simply the viewpoint of the author, whose name appears right there on the cover, and whose statements can be considered, further investigated, adopted in whole or in part, or utterly rejected.
So I do not believe the book should be removed on the basis of its content, however superficial. (And it is superficial. Most faiths get two-to-four pages of coverage, with lots of sidebars and photographs.) Moreover, the book has some historical value. It captures a certain perspective from the late 1970's. Such data is of potential interest to the social historian. The topic of cults is of undeniable interest to our patrons, who have checked out this book at least three times a year for many years in a row.
The problem is that the Douglas Public Library District is not an academic institution, determined to preserve historical records on all topics. We seek to maintain a relatively current collection. By our standards, the book Cults and New Faiths is in poor physical condition and very dated. It is not generally acknowledged as a key work in the field. In fact, we should have "weeded" it from our shelves some time ago. ("Weeding" is librarian shorthand for the part of collection management that removes older items to make way for new ones.)
So although the library must resist adopting the role of public censor, it would be contrarian to keep a book just because someone complained about it, when our standard procedures should have removed it for other reasons.
My decision, therefore, was to remove the book. We will, however, replace it with a more current title or titles on the same topic.
For the very first time since I have received such a complaint, I am going to remove the book from our collection. Let me tell you why.
The nature of the complaint was that the information in the book about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was incorrect. The book labeled Mormonism a "cult" and cast aspersions on both its origins and its theology. Also branded cults were Christian Science, Eckankar, Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientology, and others. The term "cult" was never defined. The "new faiths" (also undefined) included Bahai'i, Freemasonry, Rastafarianism, and Transcendental Meditation!
In my formal response, I said that the issue was not whether the views of the author are true. The way I see it, most of what's in print these days is slanted in one direction or another. But the public library is in the business of collecting books, largely the offerings of mainstream publishing houses; it is not in the business of either editing those books or endorsing their contents. We do try, however, to achieve some balance in our coverage of various issues.
An example is the topic of abortion. Some support a woman's right to choose. Others believe that abortion is murder. Hence there are books both for and against abortion, both of which may be found in our collection. The same situation exists for a host of sometimes controversial topics: environmentalism, homosexuality, welfare, evolution, and on and on. In other words, our materials reflect some of the views and biases of the authors now writing on the subjects. The library has neither the means nor the wisdom to "correct" those views. Again, the mission of the public library is not to decide who is right. We reflect the views of our culture, and provide a place for members of the public to examine those views, and make up their own minds.
In the area of religion, it is even more difficult to get at the "truth." Butterworth, an English newspaper editor, holds up various faiths to his own yardstick -- some form of Christianity, although he never says which denomination. According to that yardstick, every other faith is found wanting. Such a view might be extremely offensive not only to Christian Scientists and Mormons, but also to the Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim reader.
But just because a view is offensive doesn't mean that it's wrong. It doesn't mean that it's right, either. It is simply the viewpoint of the author, whose name appears right there on the cover, and whose statements can be considered, further investigated, adopted in whole or in part, or utterly rejected.
So I do not believe the book should be removed on the basis of its content, however superficial. (And it is superficial. Most faiths get two-to-four pages of coverage, with lots of sidebars and photographs.) Moreover, the book has some historical value. It captures a certain perspective from the late 1970's. Such data is of potential interest to the social historian. The topic of cults is of undeniable interest to our patrons, who have checked out this book at least three times a year for many years in a row.
The problem is that the Douglas Public Library District is not an academic institution, determined to preserve historical records on all topics. We seek to maintain a relatively current collection. By our standards, the book Cults and New Faiths is in poor physical condition and very dated. It is not generally acknowledged as a key work in the field. In fact, we should have "weeded" it from our shelves some time ago. ("Weeding" is librarian shorthand for the part of collection management that removes older items to make way for new ones.)
So although the library must resist adopting the role of public censor, it would be contrarian to keep a book just because someone complained about it, when our standard procedures should have removed it for other reasons.
My decision, therefore, was to remove the book. We will, however, replace it with a more current title or titles on the same topic.
Wednesday, December 10, 1997
December 10, 1997 - Video Loan Periods
Every now and then, we get a patron suggestion for a basic change in how we do business. One of the more recent suggestions was to change the loan period for all videos to one week.
This notion came to us by way of a written comment card (you’ll see them scattered around our libraries). Every other week our library managers get together to keep apprised of each other’s activities, and to kick around any issues that have surfaced. The library manager who received the suggestion (Holly Deni at the Philip S. Miller Library in Castle Rock) then raised the suggestion at the managers meeting.
We have a bias about patron suggestions: we prefer to take them. The loan period for our videos started out as 2 days, mostly because we didn’t have very many of them, and wanted to keep them moving. Then, back in 1996, we moved the non-instructional videos to the way it is right now.
We have two different video loan periods. One of them is for 4 days. This applies to the basic non-instructional video. The other is for 7 days, which applies to how-to videos and educational videos.
But there’s something decidedly inconsistent about this. It’s confusing for staff AND for our patrons to have to keep track of two different due dates for what seems to be the same kind of material. In short, the patron had a good idea.
So it passed the manager review. Then we ran it past front line staff to see if they could think of any problems with it.
The most significant staff concern had to with “holds.” Right now, we usually buy an extra copy of something (except for the big blockbusters) for every four requests. Would the fact that videos checked out longer mean longer waits, and therefore more holds, and therefore more purchases of videos?
So we took a look at what winds up on hold. And we learned that while we do a fairly brisk business in videos, they don’t account for many of the holds. People tend to check out what they find on the shelves.
As it happens, all of our video shelves are getting a little crowded, and in some of our libraries, we’re running out of new room to put extra shelving. This is particularly so at Highlands Ranch and the Philip S. Miller Library in Castle Rock: our building expansions at these locations are still a ways off. So the longer long period meant that we should be able to display a few more videos in less space.
In sum? The change made our procedures more consistent and therefore easier to remember, and gave us a little more breathing space.
Our only other issue was statistics. We track all kinds of materials uses, and it’s tidier to change loan periods at the beginning of the year.
So effective January 1, 1998, all our videos will check out for 1 week. Until then, it’s business as usual.
Our other limits on video use remain: there is no grace period for video checkouts. Overdue videos will be charged at fifty cents a day, up to $5.00. (That’s so you remember that even if they’re overdue, it’s cheaper to bring them back than to have to pay for their replacement.)
So there it is. Thanks to our patron for a good idea, and to our staff for giving it thoughtful consideration.
This notion came to us by way of a written comment card (you’ll see them scattered around our libraries). Every other week our library managers get together to keep apprised of each other’s activities, and to kick around any issues that have surfaced. The library manager who received the suggestion (Holly Deni at the Philip S. Miller Library in Castle Rock) then raised the suggestion at the managers meeting.
We have a bias about patron suggestions: we prefer to take them. The loan period for our videos started out as 2 days, mostly because we didn’t have very many of them, and wanted to keep them moving. Then, back in 1996, we moved the non-instructional videos to the way it is right now.
We have two different video loan periods. One of them is for 4 days. This applies to the basic non-instructional video. The other is for 7 days, which applies to how-to videos and educational videos.
But there’s something decidedly inconsistent about this. It’s confusing for staff AND for our patrons to have to keep track of two different due dates for what seems to be the same kind of material. In short, the patron had a good idea.
So it passed the manager review. Then we ran it past front line staff to see if they could think of any problems with it.
The most significant staff concern had to with “holds.” Right now, we usually buy an extra copy of something (except for the big blockbusters) for every four requests. Would the fact that videos checked out longer mean longer waits, and therefore more holds, and therefore more purchases of videos?
So we took a look at what winds up on hold. And we learned that while we do a fairly brisk business in videos, they don’t account for many of the holds. People tend to check out what they find on the shelves.
As it happens, all of our video shelves are getting a little crowded, and in some of our libraries, we’re running out of new room to put extra shelving. This is particularly so at Highlands Ranch and the Philip S. Miller Library in Castle Rock: our building expansions at these locations are still a ways off. So the longer long period meant that we should be able to display a few more videos in less space.
In sum? The change made our procedures more consistent and therefore easier to remember, and gave us a little more breathing space.
Our only other issue was statistics. We track all kinds of materials uses, and it’s tidier to change loan periods at the beginning of the year.
So effective January 1, 1998, all our videos will check out for 1 week. Until then, it’s business as usual.
Our other limits on video use remain: there is no grace period for video checkouts. Overdue videos will be charged at fifty cents a day, up to $5.00. (That’s so you remember that even if they’re overdue, it’s cheaper to bring them back than to have to pay for their replacement.)
So there it is. Thanks to our patron for a good idea, and to our staff for giving it thoughtful consideration.
Wednesday, December 3, 1997
December 3, 1997 - Still Oakes Mill
Last week's front page headline was "Oakes Mill Library to be renamed." The first sentence of the story, written by Kathie Metcalf, declared that a new name was decided at a public input meeting on November 19.
Um, no. It wasn't. The sole purpose of the meeting was to gather public input to present to the Library Board of Trustees, in combination with other e-mail messages, phone calls and letters I've received on the topic. Only the Board of Trustees can change the name of the library, and they have not yet voted to do so. I not only made this point several times verbally at the meeting, I also wrote in big letters on a flip chart: "no decision tonight."
Further, I hope I made my own position clear: I will recommend to the Board that they hold off on a name change until just before the new library opens. With luck, the quality of the building will inspire someone to want to pay for the privilege of having it named after him or her. Such a "naming opportunity" (bidding begins at $100,000!) would enable us to make significant upgrades to the library at no taxpayer expense.
On November 19, after going through each of the options -- Oakes Mill, Oakes Mill at Lone Tree, Lone Tree, and a naming opportunity -- I did ask for a show of hands for the various options, a straw poll to give each person in attendance the opportunity to indicate support. This poll clearly split along neighborhoods. Lone Tree residents supported "Lone Tree Library." Acres Green residents supported the name "Oakes Mill Library at Lone Tree" rather than just "Oakes Mill Library."
I've been thinking about that. From other avenues of public comment, I know that many Acres Green residents were strongly opposed to "Lone Tree Library." But the meeting on November 19 was about more than the name of a library. It was about the building of community. I stated there, and pointedly restate here, that the library seeks to be a bridge, not a wall, between the communities of Acres Green and Lone Tree. The library has taken great pains to be scrupulously fair to the viewpoints of our patrons, and to give reasoned deliberation to our alternatives. Everyone is welcome at the library.
I believe those Acres Green participants in the meeting offered the compromise name as something of an olive branch, a genuine attempt at reconciliation. That's very much to their credit. But it still doesn't constitute a "decision." Again, until the Library Board decides otherwise, the name of the new library is the same as the old one: Oakes Mill.
I was encouraged by the fact that residents of both communities made it a point to say how much they valued the library. Historically, both Acres Green and Lone Tree are still young. It takes time to build a set of shared values. It also takes time to work out a process by which people can speak their minds and come to consensus. That process begins with people sitting down together to discuss things.
On behalf of our Board of Trustees, I'd like to express my thanks to all the people who have taken the time to talk to us -- and to each other.
Um, no. It wasn't. The sole purpose of the meeting was to gather public input to present to the Library Board of Trustees, in combination with other e-mail messages, phone calls and letters I've received on the topic. Only the Board of Trustees can change the name of the library, and they have not yet voted to do so. I not only made this point several times verbally at the meeting, I also wrote in big letters on a flip chart: "no decision tonight."
Further, I hope I made my own position clear: I will recommend to the Board that they hold off on a name change until just before the new library opens. With luck, the quality of the building will inspire someone to want to pay for the privilege of having it named after him or her. Such a "naming opportunity" (bidding begins at $100,000!) would enable us to make significant upgrades to the library at no taxpayer expense.
On November 19, after going through each of the options -- Oakes Mill, Oakes Mill at Lone Tree, Lone Tree, and a naming opportunity -- I did ask for a show of hands for the various options, a straw poll to give each person in attendance the opportunity to indicate support. This poll clearly split along neighborhoods. Lone Tree residents supported "Lone Tree Library." Acres Green residents supported the name "Oakes Mill Library at Lone Tree" rather than just "Oakes Mill Library."
I've been thinking about that. From other avenues of public comment, I know that many Acres Green residents were strongly opposed to "Lone Tree Library." But the meeting on November 19 was about more than the name of a library. It was about the building of community. I stated there, and pointedly restate here, that the library seeks to be a bridge, not a wall, between the communities of Acres Green and Lone Tree. The library has taken great pains to be scrupulously fair to the viewpoints of our patrons, and to give reasoned deliberation to our alternatives. Everyone is welcome at the library.
I believe those Acres Green participants in the meeting offered the compromise name as something of an olive branch, a genuine attempt at reconciliation. That's very much to their credit. But it still doesn't constitute a "decision." Again, until the Library Board decides otherwise, the name of the new library is the same as the old one: Oakes Mill.
I was encouraged by the fact that residents of both communities made it a point to say how much they valued the library. Historically, both Acres Green and Lone Tree are still young. It takes time to build a set of shared values. It also takes time to work out a process by which people can speak their minds and come to consensus. That process begins with people sitting down together to discuss things.
On behalf of our Board of Trustees, I'd like to express my thanks to all the people who have taken the time to talk to us -- and to each other.
Wednesday, November 26, 1997
November 26, 1997 - Reading Scores
I’ve been measuring my own experience as a parent, as a former home educator, as a librarian, as a charter school advocate and former charter school board member, and as a passionate believer in the importance of high quality public education, against the recently published results of reading and writing scores throughout Colorado.
On the one hand, like most parents, I suffer from the “Lake Wobegon Effect.” I want to believe that my children are “above average.” As local taxpayers, we likewise want our local school district to be above average. Well, the Douglas County School District 4th grade students ARE above the state average.
Why?
There’s the sociological analysis. Douglas County has a relatively homogeneous population. Most of our students’ parents are white, well-educated, white collar workers. All else being equal, that analysis alone tends to place us statistically “above average.”
Another factor is based on research I’ve cited in this column several times, but bears repeating. In 1992, the Library Research Office of the Colorado State Library conducted a study. It demonstrated conclusively that the greatest single predictor of Colorado student success in reading (itself a reliable predictor of academic success generally) was the presence of a well-funded school library. The study was adjusted for general funding. In other words, strong school libraries (with lots of books and trained staff) were more important than the per capita income of the various student families, or the income of the school. Douglas County school libraries are better than the state average, particularly in the book-to-student ratio. So are our reading scores.
Some pundits argue that the whole issue of 4th grade student achievement in reading and writing reduces to a single educational thrust: phonics versus whole language. That’s nonsense. As any home schooler with more than one child can tell you, some children need phonics, and some don’t. It should be provided to those who do, as promptly as possible. In my opinion, phonics is a very good place to start with all students. But you don’t learn to love reading, you don’t learn the rhythm of speech and written language, by phonics drills.
Let me be absolutely clear: the more books and magazines you read, the better you read and write. Reading, not classroom instruction, is the key to better reading scores. That’s why not only school libraries are important to the education of your child, but also the regular use of a public library.
Yet another factor is curriculum. Charter schools tended to test very well in the state, in particular those schools based upon the Core Knowledge Curriculum (even more particularly the Core Knowledge Institute of Parker). Such schools differ from most public schools in our district in that they are focused around a remarkably specific set of curricular expectations.
Speaking as a strong advocate of the Core Knowledge Curriculum, as one who has served on a district curricular advisory committee, and as one who reads widely in the area of public education (albeit as a layman), I can’t help but view this as confirmation of my prejudices. In brief: a clear, demanding curriculum sets a higher standard of performance. That higher set of expectations results in a higher level of student achievement. In my opinion, the curriculum (to the extent such exists at all) of general public education in this state still trails the Core Knowledge Curriculum in clarity and consistency.
You will no doubt draw your own conclusions from the reading score data. Here are mine: aside from such broad social factors as the education and income of the parents, the greatest single influence in a child’s education is parental involvement in instruction. If children are lucky enough to have parents who check their homework every night, those children will outperform their peers. Educational reform starts at home.
The second greatest influence in the child’s education is the presence and use of a well-stocked and well-staffed school (and/or public) library. The third is the presence of a demanding and well-defined curriculum.
But regardless of your take on these matters, here’s one thing surely we can all agree on: the education of our young must be one of our most important concerns. It’s a subject that deserves our most vigorous debate, and most honest appraisal. To that end, the publication of local and statewide reading scores is a big step in the right direction.
On the one hand, like most parents, I suffer from the “Lake Wobegon Effect.” I want to believe that my children are “above average.” As local taxpayers, we likewise want our local school district to be above average. Well, the Douglas County School District 4th grade students ARE above the state average.
Why?
There’s the sociological analysis. Douglas County has a relatively homogeneous population. Most of our students’ parents are white, well-educated, white collar workers. All else being equal, that analysis alone tends to place us statistically “above average.”
Another factor is based on research I’ve cited in this column several times, but bears repeating. In 1992, the Library Research Office of the Colorado State Library conducted a study. It demonstrated conclusively that the greatest single predictor of Colorado student success in reading (itself a reliable predictor of academic success generally) was the presence of a well-funded school library. The study was adjusted for general funding. In other words, strong school libraries (with lots of books and trained staff) were more important than the per capita income of the various student families, or the income of the school. Douglas County school libraries are better than the state average, particularly in the book-to-student ratio. So are our reading scores.
Some pundits argue that the whole issue of 4th grade student achievement in reading and writing reduces to a single educational thrust: phonics versus whole language. That’s nonsense. As any home schooler with more than one child can tell you, some children need phonics, and some don’t. It should be provided to those who do, as promptly as possible. In my opinion, phonics is a very good place to start with all students. But you don’t learn to love reading, you don’t learn the rhythm of speech and written language, by phonics drills.
Let me be absolutely clear: the more books and magazines you read, the better you read and write. Reading, not classroom instruction, is the key to better reading scores. That’s why not only school libraries are important to the education of your child, but also the regular use of a public library.
Yet another factor is curriculum. Charter schools tended to test very well in the state, in particular those schools based upon the Core Knowledge Curriculum (even more particularly the Core Knowledge Institute of Parker). Such schools differ from most public schools in our district in that they are focused around a remarkably specific set of curricular expectations.
Speaking as a strong advocate of the Core Knowledge Curriculum, as one who has served on a district curricular advisory committee, and as one who reads widely in the area of public education (albeit as a layman), I can’t help but view this as confirmation of my prejudices. In brief: a clear, demanding curriculum sets a higher standard of performance. That higher set of expectations results in a higher level of student achievement. In my opinion, the curriculum (to the extent such exists at all) of general public education in this state still trails the Core Knowledge Curriculum in clarity and consistency.
You will no doubt draw your own conclusions from the reading score data. Here are mine: aside from such broad social factors as the education and income of the parents, the greatest single influence in a child’s education is parental involvement in instruction. If children are lucky enough to have parents who check their homework every night, those children will outperform their peers. Educational reform starts at home.
The second greatest influence in the child’s education is the presence and use of a well-stocked and well-staffed school (and/or public) library. The third is the presence of a demanding and well-defined curriculum.
But regardless of your take on these matters, here’s one thing surely we can all agree on: the education of our young must be one of our most important concerns. It’s a subject that deserves our most vigorous debate, and most honest appraisal. To that end, the publication of local and statewide reading scores is a big step in the right direction.
Wednesday, November 19, 1997
November 19, 1997 - Noise in the library
When I was an undergrad, I had a friend whose roommate flipped out.
My friend came back from a class to find (let’s call him) Joe cowering in a corner of the room. Every electric device, table lamp, radio, stereo, amplifier, receiver, was pointed away from him, towards the door. Joe himself would have been completely naked, except that he was wrapped in aluminum foil.
In the (as you can imagine) somewhat confused conversation that followed, it turned out that Joe had been thinking. Earlier that day, when he turned on the radio and sounds blared forth, Joe suddenly realized that all kinds of invisible but very real pulses were at every moment radiating through his body. And the more he thought about it, the more he realized that his body really wasn’t his. It was a conductive medium. Hence the aluminum foil.
On the one hand, it’s easy to dismiss all this as the chemically induced chaos that prevailed on many college campuses in the late sixties and early seventies.
On the other hand, Joe may have been onto something. I recently sat through a meeting with some fire department and emergency response types. In the course of the meeting, every one of these people had their beepers go off. Nobody, as it happened, ever left the room.
And I remembered Joe. Back then, it was just radio. These days, it’s radio and satellite TV and cell phones and pagers. Surely, at the cellular level, it can’t be doing our bodies any good to have all these signals beaming through them.
These thoughts resurfaced at a recent staff discussion about a new issue in our libraries. Noise.
It is unquestionably true that the libraries of today are noisier than the libraries of my childhood. But every place else is louder, too. Movie theaters. School rooms. Even funeral homes. It’s not a library change. It’s a societal change.
In a generation raised on multiple TV’s and cell phones and video games and CD players with headphones and PC speakers, in a time when there may be only a few square miles left on the globe where you can’t hear the roar of a jet, it could be that we have forgotten the meaning of silence.
But much like Joe, people have begun to demonstrate increasing intolerance for things as they are. Do we have more children crying, and at the same time more parents oblivious to the sound? Probably not. We DO have more library patrons who cannot TOLERATE such sounds.
I suspect that behind the sometimes unreasonable expectations of these patrons (“It’s your JOB to shut everyone up!”) lies the very real longing for sanctuary. They want a place where they just won’t be bothered. They want a place where, for a change, there’s no background noise, a place where they can listen to themselves think.
Is that totally out of line? No. Will it take some significant revisions in the way libraries do business these days? It might.
Our librarians have begun talking about how we can make our libraries a little quieter. We’ve got some ideas. We could start whispering. Seriously. Library staff set the tone for what’s acceptable.
We could turn down our phone bells and replace phone paging with voice mail.
We could step up our campaign to educate the children who attend our story times about “library voices.” We could start a more vigorous enforcement of quiet when patrons yell across the library to their children to shut up, or when they pull cell phones out of their briefcases, or when they launch into conversations that more properly belong outside.
And this is the tricky one. Can we in fact expect that our patrons will understand when we ask them to pipe down, or to whisk away their children when they have become disruptive of what many people seek in libraries -- a holy silence? How do we communicate this new expectation?
Your thoughts on this matter are hereby solicited. E-mail me at jaslarue@earthlink.net, or write me at 961 S. Plum Creek Blvd, Castle Rock CO 80104.
You can also call me at 688-8752. But keep it down, eh?
My friend came back from a class to find (let’s call him) Joe cowering in a corner of the room. Every electric device, table lamp, radio, stereo, amplifier, receiver, was pointed away from him, towards the door. Joe himself would have been completely naked, except that he was wrapped in aluminum foil.
In the (as you can imagine) somewhat confused conversation that followed, it turned out that Joe had been thinking. Earlier that day, when he turned on the radio and sounds blared forth, Joe suddenly realized that all kinds of invisible but very real pulses were at every moment radiating through his body. And the more he thought about it, the more he realized that his body really wasn’t his. It was a conductive medium. Hence the aluminum foil.
On the one hand, it’s easy to dismiss all this as the chemically induced chaos that prevailed on many college campuses in the late sixties and early seventies.
On the other hand, Joe may have been onto something. I recently sat through a meeting with some fire department and emergency response types. In the course of the meeting, every one of these people had their beepers go off. Nobody, as it happened, ever left the room.
And I remembered Joe. Back then, it was just radio. These days, it’s radio and satellite TV and cell phones and pagers. Surely, at the cellular level, it can’t be doing our bodies any good to have all these signals beaming through them.
These thoughts resurfaced at a recent staff discussion about a new issue in our libraries. Noise.
It is unquestionably true that the libraries of today are noisier than the libraries of my childhood. But every place else is louder, too. Movie theaters. School rooms. Even funeral homes. It’s not a library change. It’s a societal change.
In a generation raised on multiple TV’s and cell phones and video games and CD players with headphones and PC speakers, in a time when there may be only a few square miles left on the globe where you can’t hear the roar of a jet, it could be that we have forgotten the meaning of silence.
But much like Joe, people have begun to demonstrate increasing intolerance for things as they are. Do we have more children crying, and at the same time more parents oblivious to the sound? Probably not. We DO have more library patrons who cannot TOLERATE such sounds.
I suspect that behind the sometimes unreasonable expectations of these patrons (“It’s your JOB to shut everyone up!”) lies the very real longing for sanctuary. They want a place where they just won’t be bothered. They want a place where, for a change, there’s no background noise, a place where they can listen to themselves think.
Is that totally out of line? No. Will it take some significant revisions in the way libraries do business these days? It might.
Our librarians have begun talking about how we can make our libraries a little quieter. We’ve got some ideas. We could start whispering. Seriously. Library staff set the tone for what’s acceptable.
We could turn down our phone bells and replace phone paging with voice mail.
We could step up our campaign to educate the children who attend our story times about “library voices.” We could start a more vigorous enforcement of quiet when patrons yell across the library to their children to shut up, or when they pull cell phones out of their briefcases, or when they launch into conversations that more properly belong outside.
And this is the tricky one. Can we in fact expect that our patrons will understand when we ask them to pipe down, or to whisk away their children when they have become disruptive of what many people seek in libraries -- a holy silence? How do we communicate this new expectation?
Your thoughts on this matter are hereby solicited. E-mail me at jaslarue@earthlink.net, or write me at 961 S. Plum Creek Blvd, Castle Rock CO 80104.
You can also call me at 688-8752. But keep it down, eh?
Wednesday, November 12, 1997
November 12, 1997 - Merging of Newspapers
As previously reported by this paper, the owners of the Douglas County News-Press recently acquired the Highlands Herald.
For News-Press readers, my column is familiar. I’ve been writing it for the past seven years. Readers of the Herald, however, are probably wondering what happened to Cindy Murphy’s column. Cindy has been writing for the Herald for ten years about library goings-on, all of her columns packed with useful information.
Fear not. Cindy is still working for the library, still buzzing around the county, still baking brownies as necessary (and it’s surprising just how often it IS necessary). She’s still writing newspaper columns, too, just not here.
It happens that Cindy and I used to alternate columns for another Douglas County newspaper (Parker’s Weekly News Chronicle). When my column got merged across two papers, she inherited the other one full-time.
So since my column is new to some people, and since it’s always the case that some people are new to Douglas County, I thought I’d take the time to say what the Douglas Public Library District is, and what you’re liable to find in this column.
DPLD (the Douglas Public Library District) is, like many Douglas County entities, fairly young. We were formed, by taxpayer vote, as an independent taxing district in November, 1990. Before that time, we were an impoverished department of Douglas County government. The district includes the following service locations:
Highlands Ranch Library (791-7703), 48 W. Springer Drive, Highlands Ranch;
Louviers Library (791-7323), Louviers Village Club House;
Oakes Mill Library (under construction through next summer, although we should shortly have a bookmobile at 8827 Lone Tree Parkway, Lone Tree);
Parker Library (841-3503), 10851 S Crossroads Drive, Parker;
Philip S. Miller (688-5157), 961 S. Plum Creek Blvd, Castle Rock;
as well as “satellite” operations at the Roxborough and Cherry Valley Elementary Schools. We also operate a Books by Mail program for residents of the community of Deckers.
With the exception of Louviers, Roxborough, and Cherry Valley, our libraries are open 7 days a week: Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.; Friday and Saturday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and Sunday 1-5 p.m.
Most of our libraries offer children’s story times every week day, and in some cases, several times a day. Call for exact schedules, or look for the calendar elsewhere in this paper.
All of our libraries also offer, in addition to hundreds of thousands of new materials, the ability to place those materials “on hold,” either in person, or by connecting your computer to ours. Patrons (that’s you) can direct that the items be sent to a particular library for convenient pick-up. Speaking of computers, we have an always developing World Wide Web site, too, at http://douglas.lib.co.us.
Yet another service is “reference.” Yes, we pay people to answer your questions, by phone or in person. For free. Whether it’s a consumer question, a homework resource, or a business question, you’ll find that our reference staff are eager to track down the right answer.
DPLD is the 7th busiest library in the state. Our population is far from the 7th largest. What that means is that our patrons are among the heaviest library users you’ll find. But we also offer a free literacy tutoring service.
What will you find in this column? I promise to use the word “library” at least once each week. Beyond that, I might talk about new services, issues library staff are grappling with, or any of a number of things I’ve been reading or thinking about that have some bearing on the role of the library in Douglas County.
If you want to contact me, my phone is 688-8752. You can also write me care of Philip S. Miller Library, or e-mail me at jaslarue@earthlink.net.net.
Generally speaking, I also try to have some fun. After all, I’m the director of a library. Libraries are the best places in the whole world. Why shouldn't I be enjoying myself?
For News-Press readers, my column is familiar. I’ve been writing it for the past seven years. Readers of the Herald, however, are probably wondering what happened to Cindy Murphy’s column. Cindy has been writing for the Herald for ten years about library goings-on, all of her columns packed with useful information.
Fear not. Cindy is still working for the library, still buzzing around the county, still baking brownies as necessary (and it’s surprising just how often it IS necessary). She’s still writing newspaper columns, too, just not here.
It happens that Cindy and I used to alternate columns for another Douglas County newspaper (Parker’s Weekly News Chronicle). When my column got merged across two papers, she inherited the other one full-time.
So since my column is new to some people, and since it’s always the case that some people are new to Douglas County, I thought I’d take the time to say what the Douglas Public Library District is, and what you’re liable to find in this column.
DPLD (the Douglas Public Library District) is, like many Douglas County entities, fairly young. We were formed, by taxpayer vote, as an independent taxing district in November, 1990. Before that time, we were an impoverished department of Douglas County government. The district includes the following service locations:
Highlands Ranch Library (791-7703), 48 W. Springer Drive, Highlands Ranch;
Louviers Library (791-7323), Louviers Village Club House;
Oakes Mill Library (under construction through next summer, although we should shortly have a bookmobile at 8827 Lone Tree Parkway, Lone Tree);
Parker Library (841-3503), 10851 S Crossroads Drive, Parker;
Philip S. Miller (688-5157), 961 S. Plum Creek Blvd, Castle Rock;
as well as “satellite” operations at the Roxborough and Cherry Valley Elementary Schools. We also operate a Books by Mail program for residents of the community of Deckers.
With the exception of Louviers, Roxborough, and Cherry Valley, our libraries are open 7 days a week: Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.; Friday and Saturday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and Sunday 1-5 p.m.
Most of our libraries offer children’s story times every week day, and in some cases, several times a day. Call for exact schedules, or look for the calendar elsewhere in this paper.
All of our libraries also offer, in addition to hundreds of thousands of new materials, the ability to place those materials “on hold,” either in person, or by connecting your computer to ours. Patrons (that’s you) can direct that the items be sent to a particular library for convenient pick-up. Speaking of computers, we have an always developing World Wide Web site, too, at http://douglas.lib.co.us.
Yet another service is “reference.” Yes, we pay people to answer your questions, by phone or in person. For free. Whether it’s a consumer question, a homework resource, or a business question, you’ll find that our reference staff are eager to track down the right answer.
DPLD is the 7th busiest library in the state. Our population is far from the 7th largest. What that means is that our patrons are among the heaviest library users you’ll find. But we also offer a free literacy tutoring service.
What will you find in this column? I promise to use the word “library” at least once each week. Beyond that, I might talk about new services, issues library staff are grappling with, or any of a number of things I’ve been reading or thinking about that have some bearing on the role of the library in Douglas County.
If you want to contact me, my phone is 688-8752. You can also write me care of Philip S. Miller Library, or e-mail me at jaslarue@earthlink.net.net.
Generally speaking, I also try to have some fun. After all, I’m the director of a library. Libraries are the best places in the whole world. Why shouldn't I be enjoying myself?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)