Is Smartsm really smart without Librarians?

I was interested to read the following comment by a library person on the UKLIBCHAT site recently;

"Would you say smart sm is tech? It’s a stock analysis tool – prob software w[?] web interface I think. We’ve been impressed in some ways doesn’t replace stock knowledge. But given reduction of professional librarians and need for paraprofessionals to be involved, smartsm is a helpful tool. Interestingly except when we’ve over weeded, customers have liked the results and commented positively"

This got me thinking about stock management in Public Libraries since the cuts and the level of professional input involved. I have a number of concerns, some of them highlighted in the quote above, these are;

If there are fewer 'professional' specialist staff (Stock Librarians, Cataloguers etc) in the system then who is keeping an eye on what Smartsm tells staff to withdraw from stock? Are these decisions being left in some cases to Library Assistants, and don't get me wrong I'm not saying they are not capable of making these judgements but if so who has an overview and the final decision?

And if stock is being sometimes 'over weeded' then is replacement stock being bought and is the depth and breadth of the collection being adversely effected?

Has 'Smartsm' been used more since the cuts?

Let me use some crude examples; if there is a 3 volume series and one of the volumes hasn't been out for a year and 'Smartsm' has been told to identify for withdrawal anything that hasn't been issued for a year then who is saying "don't get rid of that it's part of a multi-volume series"? And what about 'classics', a book by Zola or Proust, in some Libraries, might not go out very often but does that mean that they should be removed from stock just because they show up on a 'Smartsm' list?

My real concerns are about the de-professionalisation of the service and the 'dumbing down' of the collections, if we are not careful we could end up with Libraries full of flavour of the week or month popularist titles and surely as Bob Usherwood points out this is not what we should be aspiring too;

"Good librarians raise expectations too. Simply stocking libraries with books that reflect the assumed tastes of the public at large is a condescending act and one that reinforces the shallow values of the market and the media. It is insulting to the intelligence of people from all kinds of backgrounds who are, as history shows, more than capable of enjoying works of excellence. In a democracy, the public library’s role is to provide equality of access to first-rate collections and services."

My concerns may be totally unfounded and I'm sure if they are my lending colleagues will be the first to let me know.

'Manchester, so much to answer for' (The Smiths)

The 'Manchester Central Library Transformation Project' as Neil MacInnes, the Head of Manchester Libraries, Information and Archives, likes to call it, or as others like to call it "cultural vandalism on an industrial scale". is causing a storm of protest from authors, library users and campaigners. And more recently some library management heavyweights have joined in the on the discussion at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A1=ind1206&L=LIS-PUB-LIBS#43

The number of books being ‘pulped’ or disposed off range from 210,000 to over 500,000, and the official reasons for them being ‘pulped’ or disposed off range from a 'miscalculation over shelf space in the refurbished library’ to "a much-needed housekeeping exercise"!

The reason I’m particularly interested in this story is that I’m a Reference Librarian, a dying breed, and in my 20+ years of working in Public Libraries have witnessed the 'pulping' and selling off, usually at a pittance, of thousands of 'reference books'. I've also witnessed rare and valuable books and manuscripts being left to rot in damp and mouldy basements and have personally saved hundreds if not thousands of books by kicking up a fuss, cataloguing them and publicising their existence, I’ve also facilitated the donation or loan of special collections to other specialist libraries. If I hadn't have done this they would have either been left to rot or boxed up and sold for a pound a volume to a second hand book dealer who would then sell them on for a very healthy profit!

Some of the books, in the collections that I am talking about, where 'weeded' because they where out of date, in bad condition or just never ever used and this process is crucial to good stock management, and I'm sure that this to some degree is what is going on at Manchester Central Library, but the vast majority where disposed off due to the space taken up by the collection being needed for another use, the reference library was downgraded, moved or closed down, there wasn't enough staff, money or time too administer the collection or specialist staff where made redundant, downgraded or moved to other positions!

Hackney Libraries years ago scrapped one of their reserve stocks, they got non-specialist and inexperienced staff to dump it in a skip out side the Central Library, a member of the public spotted it and alerted the local press and the skip was removed but the process continued behind closed doors!

Reserve stocks and special collections are being lost up and down the country, this network of collections all link together to form a valuable and important resource which should be protected and managed properly for future generations and the national good!

In my opinion the 'weeding' and disposal of between 210,000 - 500,000 books, papers and manuscripts is not normal stock management and surely some of the stock could have gone to other collections or appropriate good causes?

For links to news stories and letters relating to this story see;

http://melvinburgess.net/Manchesterlibraries.html