11th August 2011
Melbourne City Library: An inexplicable “renewal” policy that needs to be reviewed
I'm posting the entire correspondence I recently had with City Library, Melbourne which has now told me that "No further correspondence will be entered into." In that case I have no recourse but to escalate, particularly since I've been told that its inexplicable renewal policy is "standard practice on a national level in all lending libraries (academic, public and special), … with the aim of allowing maximum access for the maximum number of people".
Well, one thing it does NOT do is to provide "maximum access for the maximum number of people".
It also violates the English dictionary meaning of the word "renew" (the meaning sent to me by the Library itself – see emails below). The definition the Library sent to me re: "renewal" says: " to make effective for an additional period"
Now, let's say I have 7 apples. If I get 5 ADDITIONAL apples, then how many apples do I now have?
Anyone know the answer? (Kindergarten kids included…)
I get a total of 12 apples.
But according to the Library I get a total of 5 apples!
The Library doesn't understand either English or basic Arithmetic.
Well, things aren't that bad. I understand what the Library wants to achieve. It says:
If patrons were able to renew items for three full loan periods, another patron who placed a reservation on a book may have to wait up to nine weeks before it became available to them. This would in fact limit the availability of resources unnecessarily, and be inconsistent with the loan period set out in our policy.
But I DID NOT ask for such "renewal for three full loan periods"!!!
Instead, I had already suggested a simple solution to such a potential issue in my very first email:
this can be resolved by only permitting me to renew for 7 days from date of application for renewal, but for a maximum duration calculated based on the general library policy (maximum of 21 days in this case).
Let me explain in detail so the Library (which finds it hard to understand either English or Arithmetic) can understand what I'm saying:
Let's say that my existing loan is till 15 January and I can theoretically renew it for TWO terms of 7 days each, or a maximum of 14 day, i.e. 29 January – if it has not been recalled by anyone.
Now, I apply on 10 January for renewal. If no recall is outstanding against the item I get renewed till 17 January with option to renew to 29 January (that option DOES NOT DISAPPEAR!)
So now I go into the system on 16 January and renew for another 7 days (if the items has not been recalled).
And on 22 January I can similarly renew till 29 January. That's it. No more renewals.
That way I get to read the item for the full period of 14 additional days IF it has not been already recalled.
It is child's play for a computer programmer to set up such a simple program.
This SIMPLE solution reconciles the Library's need to get an item back soon (say, within 7 days) due to a recall, with the OPTION of a customer to renew an item for a consistent period of time SHOULD IT NOT BE RECALLED.
It is clearly time for the "standard practice" be reviewed.
The current policy also extracts FAR MORE REVENUE than a logical policy would extract AND prevents genuine readers from reading books.
Before I end this, let me add that the Melbourne City Library is EXCELLENT, and I strongly urge you, if you live in Melbourne, to use it. The fact that one of its policies is completely inexplicable doesn't mean you should not use it. I only hope that publishing this will make the Library (indeed all libraries across Australia) to consider how they can serve their customers better.
Now for the detailed correspondence, below. I've removed the name of the official who responded to me, to ensure privacy – for it is not the individual that I'm interested in, but the principle.
My complaint dated 4 August 2011
From Sanjeev Sabhlok
To City Library
Melbourne
Sub: Complaint re: the renewals system
Dear Sir/Madam
I’m a member of your excellent library, which I use from time to time.
I’m writing in relation to the discrepancy between my “entitlements” – as stated on your website – and the actual access to renewals provided by your computer system.
Your website shows that I'm entitled to borrow DVDs for 7 days, with two options to renew, of seven days each. This implies the “entitled” renewal period of 21 days, should I choose to renew an item.
My assumption upon borrowing a few DVDs on 27 July 2011 was that I would be entitled to two renewals. I didn’t calculate then, but have calculated now that this would mean I could have borrowed these DVDs up to 17 August, assuming that these have not been requested by someone else in the meanwhile.
It turns out, however, that this is now your computer system works.
Upon receiving an email reminder from the library a few days ago, I renewed the DVDs. At that time I noticed that I did not get the full benefit of 7 additional days, being somehow truncated to only 8 August. It should have been 10 August, but I didn’t pay attention to this discrepancy at that time.
I realised today (4 August) that I can’t return the DVDs on 8 August. So I opted to renew the DVDs a second time today, expecting this renewal to go up to 15 August. The system, however, only renewed till 11 August, and this feature of your system was later confirmed over phone.
Thus instead of being able able to renew up to 17 August, I only got to renew till 11 August, a significant discrepancy compared to my "entitlements" outlined on your website.
It is evident that this “system” distorts the meaning of the word "renewal", an therefore violates your own policy commitment on your website. In plain English, the word “renewal” implies that the borrowed item will be renewed for 7 days (in this case) from the date up to which the item is checked out, not from the date of making the attempt to renew.
Consider this: If I choose to renew my subscription to a magazine (for which I’ve paid, say, till December 2011) by one more year today, it doesn’t mean that my subscription will go only up to 4 August 2012. If I similarly choose to renew my annual gym membership, it doesn’t mean my already existing “entitlements” will disappear just because I renew the annual membership, say, 6 months prior to the date up to which I have paid for the membership.
And so on. I don’t need to dwell on basic English language, for you surely have access to all the dictionaries you need.
Indeed, if the “system” you have in place be allowed to continue, one could presumably exhaust one's options for renewal on the first day of borrowing itself! Thus, if on 27 July 2011 if I had chosen to renew the DVDs twice, I would presumably have exhausted all my options for renewal immediately, and would have had to return the DVDs on 3 August itself.
In saying this, please note that I have no problems (and nor will any borrower) with returning (within a week from receipt of notice) any borrowed item that has been requested by someone else, even though I might have the item renewed till 17 August. Indeed, this can be resolved by only permitting me to renew for 7 days from date of application for renewal, but for a maximum duration calculated based on the general library policy (maximum of 21 days in this case).
However, to forfeit my renewal opportunities because your system doesn't follow the English language meaning of the word “renewal” (or any other logic that can be possibly constructed in this regard), is a concern.
I suggest that it is child’s play to fix the library computer system to allow renewals up to the last date to which one is entitled (in this case 17 August 2011), even if each renewal is done only for 7 days from the date of seeking renewal.
Could I therefore request you to fix your computer system to allow borrowers to renew their items as many times as necessary up to their maximum "entitlement" (in this case 21 days) – 7 days at a time?
I have requested that I not be penalised because of the inexplicable and illogical design of your computer system, and that the DVDs that I propose to return on 15 August be accepted without penalty.
However, it is not to avoid a petty fine that I'm putting all this time and energy to write. I'm writing to seek restoration of borrowers’ sanity and of the English language, and to ensure that your public policy about borrowing items makes sense.
Regards
Sanjeev Sabhlok
City Library response dated 5 August 2011
Dear Sanjeev,
Thank you for your enquiry regarding renewal of your library items.
All library items available for loan may have 2 renewals
These renewals are made for the loan period of the item and are from the date of renewal, and not from the original date due. Any items returned after the calculated due date are liable to fines of 30c per day per item. The items currently on loan to you are due back on 11 August 2011. Please ensure your items are returned by this date to avoid fines accruing on your account.
I hope this assists in clarifying the matter for you.
Regards,
My further response dated 5 August
Dear XX
Thanks for your response. It is, however, not a satisfactory resolution to my questions.
In particular, can you show me where in the Library policy is a renewal supposed to occur from the "date of renewal" (as you claim in your email) – thus nullifying the days it is already checked out to?
I couldn't find any reference to this peculiar definition of the meaning of the word "renew" – it being inconsistent with the English language use of this word.
Regards
Sanjeev
City Library's further response (5 August)
Dear Sanjeev,
Thanks for your reply.
As mentioned in my email below, items are able to be renewed twice. This is on the provision that another user has not requested the item. In order to facilitate this, the renewal is calculated from the date the request is made (checking on that date if another user has reserved the item in the meantime). This is to ensure fair access to the resources held by the library.
If you are concerned about making sure you have the maximum time allowable for a particular item, you have the option to renew the item on the due date. Please be aware that if another user has requested the item during your loan period, you will not be able to renew the item.
This is an operational requirement of the library and is not negotiable.
I trust this clarifies the library policy and resolves the matter fully.
Regards,
My further response dated 5 August 2011
Dear XX
I'm not trying to "negotiate" anything. I'm trying to understand where the City Library policy states that a renewalnullifies the days of entitlement – being the days up to which an item is already checked out to.
In other words, I'm asking for a PUBLICLY documented statement of the Library's so-called "operational" policy – not something sent to me by email as an "explanation".
I simply want to know where you've disclosed this strange policy publicly – and also publicly explained why the Library's use of the word "renew" is inconsistent with the English language as we know it.
Such public disclosure is crucial before the Library starts using standard English words in its own way.
Regards
Sanjeev
City Library's further response 5 August 2011
Dear Sanjeev,
Your emails have brought to our attention a gap in our policy. The wording on the policy document does not explicitly state the day the renewal is to take effect from. We will look at rectifying this oversight as soon as possible to avoid any further confusion.
Thanks for your concern in this matter.
Regards,
XX
My further response 6 August 2011
Dear XX
I trust you are aware that I'm looking not just for an explicit statement of when a renewal takes effect. I'm looking for (at the minimum) reasons why the Library's use of the word "renewal" is inconsistent with the English language, why such a capricious and random policy exists in the first place.
I also trust that your work (in reviewing this policy) will be consistent with the Library's own vision and mission.
a) Vision: to "serve the communities"
b) "Free access to information": All people residing, working, visiting and studying in Melbourne should have access to all available printed and electronic information. [Principle 1 of your strategic plan]
By making people pay fines well in excess of what they would otherwise have (depending on the date on which they renew) the current City Library operational policy violates the "free access" principle.
And it is clearly NOT a service to the community to penalise them randomly based on the date on which they action a renewal. It is a disservice since the Library is sending a message that people (like me) should NOT borrow. For instance, I returned all DVDs yesterday – many of them educational documentaries – without watching more than a few since I can't go to the city (I'm on leave next week) to return them on 11 August. As a result you've ensured that the community is NOT served, and that the community DOES NOT have free access to information. You've ensured I remain ignorant by forcing me to return documentaries before watching them EVEN THOUGH NO ONE HAD BOOKED THESE DVDs.
The story of the dog in the manger comes to mind.
In this case the renewal regulation is INCONSISTENT and UNPREDICTABLE. The renewal is subject to the random event of when a person renews, not on a consistent principle that one can renew up to (say) 14 days or whatever. That means in the case I've referred to, someone could get 7 days of access to the DVDs, while others could have access to 21 days. This is a severe inconsistency. Your rules VIOLATE good practice in rule making in Victoria, apart from violating the Library's own vision and strategic plan.
I trust you'll review Library rules accordingly.
If I may add, the policy as it stands today seems designed to raise revenues from unsuspecting customers. A stealthy way to steal people's money. A method designed to PREVENT people from becoming educated. In other words, it is a capricious policy best suited to communist countries that have the worst interests of the community at heart, not to a free society that runs on well-though out rules and a broad set of principles.
Regards
Sanjeev
City Library's further response 11 August 2011
Dear Sanjeev,
Thank you for you email.
I would like to reassure you that Melbourne Library Service is not intentionally taking liberties with the English language, and that our use of the word 'renew' is within it's meaning as defined by the Macquarie Dictionary Online (see particularly definition 2 below).
As you mentioned Melbourne Library Service's vision and mission outlines our aim to provide free access to information, and to serve the community. It is with these aims in mind that we developed our current loan and renewal policy.
Our loans policy (
http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/MelbourneLibraryService/aboutus/Documents/MLS%20Loans%20Policy%20July.pdf) outlines the loan period for individual items. When a renewal takes place on the date a request is made, we ensure people requesting a particular resource do not have to wait longer than one period for that item to become available. I
f patrons were able to renew items for three full loan periods, another patron who placed a reservation on a book may have to wait up to nine weeks before it became available to them. This would in fact limit the availability of resources unnecessarily, and be inconsistent with the loan period set out in our policy.
Melbourne Library Service has not developed our policy with the intention of generating income through fines. We have developed it based on current standard practice on a national level in all lending libraries (academic, public and special), and with the aim of allowing maximum access for the maximum number of people. Fines are only accrued if an item is returned after the due date, which is always made available to the patron at the point of loan or renewal of an item.
I thank you for your concern in this matter however now consider the matter resolved. No further correspondence will be entered into.
Regards,
The problem seems to be that the software designer tried to replicate the pre-computerized/paper process: When you go to the library to borrow or renew a book, the library stamps a new date return date in the book/card and the date on the stamp is set at the beginning of each day to today+7.
Even though an online borrowing process allows for greater flexibility of the borrow/renew process, the software designer only tried to replicate the paper process. I call this the 'buggy whip problem': the analogy is that we've progressed from horse buggies to cars, but the car mechanism for controlling the speed is based on the crack of a whip or pulling reins rather than throttle and brake pedals. It may be comforting to drivers transitioning from a buggy to a car, but it is terribly inefficient.
If the software designer and the library had put some thought into the process, they would allow you to check for reservations 2-3 days prior to due date and allow for renewal for the full duration in the absence of a reservation.
Thanks, Charu
Good point. This is also typical of Indian bureaucrats, who continue with “TA/DA” forms designed by the British 150 years ago (there is a question that asks you for distance traveled on elephant!). From my experience of Australian bureaucrats, they are not particularly more helpful or imaginative than Indian ones. Just that the overall design of the system here is a TINY BIT better. Intelligence wise, Indian bureaucrats are MORE intelligent (but this declines rapidly after the IAS/ state civil service).
I’m disappointed that the library didn’t pay attention to my simple suggestion. As you’ve it is easy to design a computer program to meet two objectives (a) ensure a customer can read up to a certain pre-determined duration – if it is not on recall, (b) ensure that a customer can recall a book within a certain (shorter) duration.
S