« Devo goes to the dark side | Main | Library 2.0: New or No? »
January 04, 2006
PR blogger comments on libraries, fines, and librarian bloggers
Public relations blogger Andrea Weckerle has commented on Library 2.0, a potential campaign to get the word out about libraries and our many services, how some of us are pretty hip (hee hee!). That's the major focus of her post.
She starts the post, however, by citing some "bad library PR" about a patron who didn't pay his fines and now can't use the library any more. Well, yes. I'm sorry to be un-hip here, but libraries are government agencies funded by public money. If you don't return something you checked out, yes, you have to pay for it. And if you keep an item out for weeks and weeks and weeks after it's due, preventing others from using it, yes, you get a fine. That's the only way we can make sure the materials get back to the library for the rest of your neighbors to use too. I also have two other beefs with the articles she cites:
- The gentleman says he goes to Barnes and Noble instead now because there is no "fear of retribution there." Oh come on. You have to buy the materials at Barnes and Noble. Library materials are free. If you can't return materials on time or at all, then yes, we'll do what we have to do to protect community resources. Sorry. Them's the rules.
- The gentleman says that his kids now can't use the library. Every library I've ever worked at has different cards for each user. If the parent has $1,000 in fines in his card, that would not prevent the child from checking out materials on his/her own card. Ridiculous. What's more likely, to me, is that the gentleman is embarrassed and angry and won't go back for that reason--ultimately denying his children some great learning experiences because of his own hubris. And if all he's going to Barnes and Noble for is to hang around and read books, he and his kids can do that too in the library, even with cards full of fines--as long as they don't check materials out of the building, they're free to use whatever resources they want. Gah. Ridiculous.
January 4, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c511253ef00e55065337d8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference PR blogger comments on libraries, fines, and librarian bloggers:
Comments
I won't take the time to explain in a detailed manner how this happend, but our library has three patrons right now with a few thousand dollars each in replacement fees (checked a couple hundred DVDs/CDs out and sold them on the street). So Erin, it's not just a few dollars we're talking about. Usually when people get referred to collection agencies by libraries it's for at least a few hundred dollars.
Also, every library card application that I have ever seen does have the terms of responsibility outlined--that if you lose items, damage them, or keep them out longer than allowed you are financially responsible. There is a clear expectation and agreement to the terms in the contract (because that's what it is--a contract between the library and you). When you check those items out you are entering into a binding agreement. If you violate the agreement, you are legally repsonsible for the consequences.
When a user incurs a fine or fee from a library, (s)he is told--you lost this book, you need to pay to replace it, or you kept this out 8 weeks past the due date, here's the fine. You have to disregard warning after warning before you will be sent to a credit agency. That was your choice to make.
Posted by: Sarah Houghton (LiB) | February17, 2006
I absolutely feel that library fines should not be on a credit report. Especially because they are always for paltry amounts. Ruining someones credit score, making them lose a 100 points is HUGE thing to do to someone. You can really ruin their life. If the person ever wants to use the library again - they will come in and pay the fine. Its a municipal fine, not a credit transaction with known terms. Do you notify your patrons when they sign up for a card that they can and will be turned over to a collection agency??
I have a library fine on my credit report, and I no longer can open a business in my community, I took such a hit on my score. I am a home owner in this community and I can assure you that my tax dollars that go to the library system every year FAR exceed my library fine. I frankly wish I could stop my tax dollars from going there now. And there is really no incentive to pay this fine now that it is on my credit report. It will continue to do damage for another 7 years.
I guess as librarians you look on people who have outstanding fines with real dislike, especially if you can embrace the idea of ruining their credit and thinking the 'deserve' it.
But most of these people are honest, good people in your community and you are creating nothing but bitterness. The irony to me, is I once made a big donation to my local Friends of the Library! HA! NEVER AGAIN.
Posted by: Erin | February17, 2006
im sorry but for the people who are bad talking claude dacorsi over a late few for books now you tell me that you haven't turned in books....we have all done it and yes...libraries are now starting to charge you late fees if the a a few days late...if you didn't know that then you don't go to the library..
Posted by: | January22, 2006
Mr. DaCorsi,
I'd like to know what you consider "a few days" because $15 for 2 books still does not compute if they were only late "a few days". More like a month and a half.
Posted by: Larry | January16, 2006
It is really me. I was emailed this blog the day the article came out. It was a $15 dolar late fee for 2 books that were only a few days late. The library turned the $15 late fee into a $40 collection when they did not notify whoever, that this was a paid fee and not to be sent to collections. That didnt happen and poof a $40 collection on the credit report. I have seen $6 collections before. I can assure you if you owe a $5 late fee and dont pay it Multnomah County Library will turn you in. It is quite common. Not only in Oregon but across the country. Google library fines and you will find a wealth of information. Some disturbing. The Library did not comment. They know why. And we cant talk about it. BTW the collection was removed off every report it was on.
Posted by: Claude DaCorsi | January15, 2006
This all smells rather fishy to me. I have to question that this is the gentleman in question, as it seems unlikely he would find this blog so quickly considering his active dislike of libraries. It is possible that he found it via online references to the article though.
His claim is the books were late by a few days, they were returned, they paid a $15 late fee, the end. Or so he thought, until it showed up on his credit report. This story still does not compute. How did a $15 late fee turn into $40 reported to the credit agency? And if the fee was paid, how was a report to the credit agency generated with this guys name?
I used to work for a cable tv company, which had to turn in people for non-payment quite regularly. As soon as we did receive a payment to clear an account, it was reflected on the next report to the collection agency. So there could be a month or so before their credit file is cleared (or at least it was reported to be cleared, the collection agency had its own schedule), so was it a case of it being reported before he paid the fine and it just didn't come off in time for it to not affect his loan request?
If one assumes he was using the Multnomah County Library (which serves Portland), their fine structure is 25 cents per day, up to $10 per item on adult materials, and 10 cents a day up to $5 per item for children's and young adult items. That does jive with the $15 amount, because it was stated that one book was a children's book, but it also means that the books were at least 40 days overdue, not just a "few days" as he claims.
I guess the WSJ didn't think it worthwhile to contact the library in question, because we check stuff out for free, so we must be Socialists or something, and therefore suspect. ;)
Posted by: Chris | January 9, 2006
The comment about Netflix and Blockbuster not having fines is misleading. Netflix allows subscribers to have 1-3 DVDs (depending on the subscription) for unlimited time, but you cannot have more than the maximum until you return a DVD. Blockbuster is similar. If you opt not to return something, you still have to pay the monthly service fee. I imagine if you cancel the service without returning a DVD, you'll be charged the cost of the DVD.
Can you imagine a library allowing only 3 items and no more? Instead, the public library allows you to check out many more movies, books, music, CD-ROMS, etc; provides research assistance; subscribes to magazines and newspapers you can read at the library; and provides a multitude of free programs for children and adults, to mention only a few things the public library offers. All the library asks is that you return borrowed materials on time so that others may use them.
Posted by: kate | January 8, 2006
Er, the press I've seen about libraries going after people has almost always stated the amount and has been fairly positive.
Honestly, it would have to be an unusual public library to 1) rack up $15 in fines for two items that were overdue by only a few days, and 2) get turned in to a credit agency for an amount that small, especially after the fine was paid. It could be true (what the hell do I know about that library?), but it would be exceedingly rare.
Posted by: Me | January 8, 2006
I work in a library in the pacific northwest, and I can say with assurance that someone who owes $40 would not have been referred to a collection agency (it would have to be over $50)
always remember Just 'cause someone says something, don't mean ir's true
Posted by: dusty1 | January 8, 2006
Well, once again we see the laxness of our press in fact checking or careless editing. If the library turned this fellow in for collections after he paid his fees and returned the materials they were wrong. Damaging someone's credit is all too easily done and the library should rectify the situation and apologize. My posting was based on the information as reported in the story, and yes I was being facetious to prove a point. We in the library profession are regularly treated to news stories about people who are arrested or heavily fined for not returning materials. Usually these amount to some outrageous amount of materials that public money was spent in acquiring, but that particular point is often understated or left out altogether. The library usually comes off in these stories as being vindictive, with the impression left implicitly that "after all these are just library materials" and "aren't those free anyway?"
I really feel for those patrons who need books on such things as taking the Asvab test, the Ged, martial arts, or any number of popular music cds or dvds that they could use because someone else chose to take them and not return them. (I'm not using the word "stole" here).
It is a crying shame the amounts of money this adds up to be, and yet the library comes off being the villain when it seeks some remedy. It is another crying shame that I can't always lend some poor kid that wants to be a soldier an asvab book so he can take his test because someone else has not returned the book (and we buy these in multiples).
Apparently there was more to this particular story, but in most cases the library has given the patrons every chance and yet still comes off as heavy handed.
Again, it does sound as though this particular library owes the patron an apology, but the story is another in a long line of misleading ones about libraries. We wouldn't have gotten the straight story unless the patron himself hadn't posted it, (no thanks to the print media). The way in which these situations are covered by the media is guaranteed to strike a nerve with librarians who are genuinely trying to provide every patron with the use of the materials that the patrons want and need.
Paul
Posted by: Paul | January 7, 2006
I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea, but the rules are as they are now--and people do need to stick to them if they want to use library resources. I don't think they're unreasonable. If you don't break the rules, the materials are free to you to use. If you do, then they're not. There is a good discussion going over on It's All Good about this too: http://scanblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/killing-off-fines-is-long-overdue.html
Posted by: Sarah Houghton (LiB) | January 6, 2006
Leaving aside the details of this incident... I've long wondered if getting rid of fines would be all that bad an idea. People would still be responsible for returning the materials, and if they kept them too long then "replacment" fees could certainly be charged. But if Netflix (and Blockbuster) can do without fines, why not the library?
[Yes, having the materials "in trust" for all the community needs to be worked out. As does the fact that fines raise money that the Library (or the General Fund of the jurisdiction) would need to make up for in some way. But a fine IS a barrier, especially for young kids who may not be willing to tell their parents about the fines they have accrued, and then no longer use the library.]
Posted by: Scott | January 6, 2006
$15 for two items that were a few days late? What the heck library did you GO to? If that's true, you don't need to buy your books, you need to go to a different library and ask your current library where they got their fine structure. Heck, every public library I've used has had caps on the late fees per item.
Posted by: Me | January 6, 2006
The way the Wall Street Journal article was written did not reflect that at all. The article stated about your case:
"Claude DaCorsi, a management consultant in Portland, Ore., used to pride himself on his near-perfect credit rating. But during a recent routine credit check, he discovered his credit scores had plunged to 'below average.' The reason: Two late library books, including a picture book taken out for his two-year-old son. The library had turned over the $40 late fee to a private collection agency. Mr. DaCorsi, who says the black mark affected his interest rate on a home loan, has since barred his children from visiting the library. 'We go to Barnes & Noble now,' he says. 'We can get books there without fear of retribution.'"
I thank you for your clarification. And I do think the person who referenced shoplifting was merely comparing taking a book out from a library & not returning it and taking a book from B&N and not paying for it.
I'm still confused about how the $15 fee you report became a $40 fee in the article. And truly, even if it was $15, for two books that means $7.50 in fines for each, and at a rate of 15-30 cents per day, that's more than a few days.
I am sorry to hear that your library did not handle the referral to a collection agency appropriately. If you are willing to purchase materials instead of returning to a library that you feel treated you badly, I can understand that. But there are so many more offerings at the library--not just books and movies. Your kids are missing out on storytimes, puppet shows, homework help, online resources, eBooks, and more. It makes me sad that this kind of thing happened to you, and now your kids won't get to experience any of that. I understand your frustration--I would just hope you could get past that for your children's sake.
Posted by: Sarah Houghton (LiB) | January 6, 2006
The books were late buy a few days. A mistake made on our part. They were brought back immediately when we were notified they were late. We paid the $15 late fee with no quarrel, it was our fault. The Library decided to place this with a collection agency anyways. This action caused our credit scores to go from 740's to the 630's. The collection has since been removed due to a few FCRA and FDCPA violations. The scores have recovered. The reason we do not go to the Public Library anymore is because of the way we were poorly treated. The late fee was imposed because of us. We paid for our mistake. We now buy our books instead of borrowing them. This way my credit will not be affected. Anybody who thought I was refering to shoplifting is seriously wrong and hopefully was being funny and not slanderous. Dont assume anything.
Posted by: Claude DaCorsi | January 6, 2006
Very true. Free to the patron at the time of use--not free overall.
Posted by: Sarah Houghton (LiB) | January 5, 2006
Well put. A brilliant librarian I've known for years preaches "prepaid" not "free", as in "our taxes, taken together, have prepaid for this service". While we don't charge you to use this or that service (providing you follow some fairly basic rules of human behavior), this library, its materials, its educated (and caring) staff are not and were not free to anyone.
I deal with library accounts in collection every day. I just don't understand why, after a person has received phone calls and letters, they still don't take any action at all. And to be credit reported for a library account, in most libraries, that's really what you have to do: take no action at all.
Posted by: Dale | January 5, 2006
Yes and taking a book out of Barnes and Noble (with or without the intention of returning it) would be called shoplifting and would result in a far greater penalty than the 40$ cost of replacing the materials. I wonder if he'll try that when he visits their store? Presumably the library gave him every opportunity to return the materials at a nominal fine fee before sending his account to collections.
I should point out that Library books are not "free" because whoever funds the library paid for them - Even librarians are in the habit of perpetuating the idea that the process is free when they don't clarify what they mean. They mean that "to the patron" the process is free in most instances as long as the patrons are borrowing under conditions set by the library with no direct charge passed on to the patrons for the transaction. - "Somebody" did pay for those books and videos or they wouldn't be in the library in the first place, and librarians don't come to work every day for free either.
Paul
Posted by: | January 5, 2006
Thanks for continuing the discussion here (and, by the way, I agree with you that fines should be imposed and enforced). I'm glad that my post sparked such an impassioned response. Now let’s band together on getting the word out about Libraries 2.0.
Posted by: Andrea Weckerle | January 4, 2006
