Library staff as patrons: a conundrum? Talk amongst yourselves...

Lots of staffers have discussed Tuesday's post with me lately.

"What's up with the downloadable audiobooks survey?"

"In their non-work time, aren't staff patrons?"

"I've looked at that staff wiki. What ARE we supposed to do?"

"I agree with you, but I don't dare say so on the blog. I can't believe YOU do!"

Well, dear readers, sometimes I can't believe I do either. I still believe that blogs are an important way for institutions to learn, grow, share, and connect-- and Library Journal's recent article about transparency strengthens my resolve to discuss what I think is important for our system even if it's not always fun. Transparency is more than just a buzzword-- it's a viable goal.

These staff contacts are variations on a theme: what does make patrons who happen to also work for the library different than patrons proper? How does working at the library imply any sort of edge or stain?

The library has worked hard to make certain that there's no huge advantage to being a library employee. We pay our overdues and fines, we wait in line for the newest Grisham, and we park in the staff lot during work time. Even purchase requests are only sought by staff when there's a personal need-- not a professional interest in a particular area of a collection. Abuses of any of the above are dealt with quickly and seriously.

Therefore it is unclear to me, since we hope that no one is working more than 40 hours of any given week for our library, why the rest of our lives would not be considered "patron lives". And as patrons, wouldn't each individual have preferences we'd wish to consider? Like a plain old patron?

Our director did a self-proclaimed "180" when at first he said staff may never park in the new patron parking lot-- in their off-duty time. Staff are clearly patrons at least some of the time. I would welcome some civil discourse. . .