Individual Messages and Responses to the Web Form
As the MM1 suggests the continuation of the Collections Manager position to coordinate the selection activities in the divisional library, and the Reference Coordinator position to coordinate the reference activities in each divisional library, has any thought been given to the creation of an additional coordinator position in each divisional library to coordinate the third specialization (instruction) activities?
comments on the proposed model (five div. libs, collection managers, Associate Head): Why is the associate head position is probably necessary in this model?
job descriptions: What happens if a librarian does not choose instruction? Does that mean that she or he would not teach his/her own subject-related classes? If he or she would teach classes, then what would he or she be giving up by not choosing it?
What are the implications for part-time librarians? (Or could this be up to individual librarians and their supervisors?)
We talked a lot about the Associate head also being the reference coordinator or collections manager. Please spell this out.
Also, it is obvious that our current heads are qualified to be our future heads. But what of the remaining vacant heads? Clearly, our associate heads are probably our most qualified *employees*, but this doesn't make them the most qualified *candidates*. Furthermore, if an associate head steps up as Head, the reference coordinator/collections manager isn't necessarilyi qualified or desirable to step up as associate head. Exactly in which situations will vacant positions be filled with a full surch, and in which situations will they be filled internally? The concern, obviously, is that the wrong people will end up in the wrong place and that new people who would be good in those places would never get in.
job descriptions: The most obvious problem with this idea is that while there are organizational structures for reference and collections (the reference coordinator and collections manager), no such strucutre exists for bibliographic instruction. If bibliographic instruction is so important, why isn't a structure in place to represent BI interests in the management strucutre. Currently, there is one specialist in Bibliographic Instruction in the libraries. Will that position be used as a head of BI for all the libraries? For just one library? Will other such positions be created/changed? How will bibliographic instruction be represented in the scheme of things? So far, reference and collections have decision-making power, but not bibliographic instruction, if I understand the situtation correctly.
But it may be that bibliographic instruction really *isn't* important to public services at this point for MIT Libraries. Shoule it be inculeded as a primary or secondary focus? Is there such thing as a tertiary focus?
From what I gather, and what I heard at the town meeting, no one is going to be able to completely give up their collection or reference duties, no matter what they choose as their primary or secondary focus. In fact, it seems no one can give up their collection duties no matter what. So, instead of a librarian spending 45% of their time on reference, 45% on collections and 10% on bibliographic instruction, how are we changing that ratio?
55% reference and 45% collections or vice versa?
OR, are we actually asking librarians to do more?
75% reference 45% collections
OR, are we suggesting it's okay to sacrifice collections in one area (ie one selector choose reference) in order to boost our reference clout in that area?
I understand the idea of pawning off the general subject matter to others in the department, and keeping the "expert" around for consulation when specific questions related to the feild arise. (I know thats vague, does that make sense?)
But who is actually going to be doing the "general" work? Support staff? Other librarians? The collections manager or reference coordinator? I can see it balancing out if some people want to work more reference and some want to work less. I don't see the same for collections (or bibliographic instruction for that matter).
Yes, support staff are there to *support*, but careful decisions need to be made before that support is removed from one area and added to another (since we can't add support because of headcount).
And I'm not done yet on this issue (sorry). There has been some talk about applying this model to support staff. The whole asking them (us) to choose either reference or technical support. Who is going to do the rest of the support job?
More importantly, this model has already been tested here at MIT, and it failed, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not saying that we should avoid it altogether, just that we need to be aware of the pitfalls of the LTE situation. First, there has been no compensation and little recognition. Compensation is important because while most LTE's are level IV, those who concntrate fully on LTE work are level V. I know all of these issues are being worked on by a group that will recommend or make changes in the current LTE structure. I think it would be a good idea to see what they have to say, so that their ideas and models can be thought of when constructing models for PS redefinition.
user focus: Yes, direct contact with library readers is a good thing. I think this is a good model and worth giving a go. One thing that's confusing is that I was under the impression that dividing the "coupled" libraries would enable our heads to concentrate fully on the management of one library instead of two. Working with a user group could potentially take a big chunk of time and energy away from accomplishing that task.
forums: Having forums is a great idea. Having representation is an even better. The heads of these forums should also act as point-people or liasons for committees, or they should have the power to appoint people to committees to represent their area.
ISP: This is a really vague model, and I think that's why it's such a sticky situation and we've had so many questions and complaints already. I say, wade right through them, come up with a coherent structure, including technology and space issues, and install the ISP.
ILB: I don't know that there's anything wrong with ILB being part of hum right now, but there's a lot of things I don't know, and I'll be the first to admit it. In a lot of smaller institutions, the functions of ILB and Doc Services are in one overall ILL office. If, in a larger institution, it hasn't been necessary to combine them, or if they work better separately, why should we combine them now? Also, if Hum doesn't want ILB anymore or vice versa, then consider separateing ILB out but don't necessarily join them with DS.
Access Services Librarian: I see the access services librarian taking on a lot of the tasks that circ supervisors do. Are we going to get rid of circ supervisors? I think that may be a fair model to follow, just as long as the access services librarian can maintain the same proximity to the circ staff that a supervisor can. My sense is that the whole "cutting out middle management" thing never really worked for most compaines. It may be better to re-write the circ supervisor position to keep better tabs on access services in general. Hayden is a special case, and I admit may require special circumstances, so this model is good for that purpose, but can it be applied to other libraries? If it can't, will this cause problems? If we have a head of circulation in Hayden, should we have a head of processing? Collections?
current branches: I've noticed that our branch libraries are great because all of the readers know the librarians and support staff, even the student workers. It would be great if our larger libraries could function that way. The system works, I trust, so we should keep it.
intent/strengths: I don't see how decision-making has been moved to lower levels. If anything, we're adding more 'upper level' (heads and associate heads) positions. We need to allow support staff on more committees, *that* would be lower-level decision-making ability.
still to be addressed:
What Ginny said at the Town Meeting monday was that career development for support staff was an institute-wide issue. She didn't say whether the issue is being addressed institute-wide or not, so my sense is that it hasn't been. This is starting to stray further and farther from public services, but I would love the Libraries to force the issue. If it's an institute-wide issue, shouldn't there be institute-wide reform? I volunteer.
other: I raised the question at the town meeting that issues and organization for support staff haven't been fleshed out. In response, Ginny encouraged us all to give suggestions on this here comment form.
My only suggestion is that a really good place to start is with the OITF discussion groups/forums/or whatever. A lot of important issues, priorities and concerns were communicated in those sessions. I also want to stress that even though OITF had us prioritize the most important issues, in no way were any of the other issues *not* important.
I would love to have more opportunities for input as this model is developed to incorporate changes (or not) for support staff, computer support staff (LTEs) and exempt staff.
--caleb t-r
p.s. I think these scroll boxes with the line-wrapping are snazzy.
comments on the proposed model(five div. libs, collection managers, Associate Head): Even after de-merge, it would be useful to maintain joint collections and information meetings for Eng/Sci because of overlap between disciplines.
user focus: Is there a way to ensure proportional representation of MIT user groups. If the user group in one of the Schools were larger, would the librarian group working with that user group need more members?
There may be quite a lot of overlap in the needs of some of the user groups, perhaps creating redundancy.
forums: Will there be a forum for publicity? There has been no mention of this important function. Will instruction include orientation?
ISP: The ISP pilot should have a 12-month evaluation point as well as a 6-month one. Centralization of privilege cards of all sorts would be useful in a location not confused with reference; queues and interruptions dilute reference service. Science reference would benefit from being in its own location, not confused with general informational and other circulation and reserve traffic. If other units can have their own discrete ISPs, why not Humanities and Science?
ILB: There's a logic in having Doc Services house ILB because it already is knowledgeable in document supply. This would be a good time to consolidate other document delivery services that may have sprung up in other units.
Access Services Librarian: The units in Building 14 need coordination less by their location than by function. While space is a major problem, the establishment of this position does not seem to address the problem. The solution lies more in appropriate funding and eventual obtaining of more space, be it in storage or on-site.
still to be addressed: Having too many different staff members serve at reference desks lacks continuity for users. Except in emergencies, staff should do reference primarily in their primary location.
forums: The Service Priorities Task Force identified a number of "highest" and "high" priorities. Among the "high" priorities was "Provide a three-tiered instruction program, emphasizing interactive web instruction". Although Modified Model One identifies "instruction/orientation/training" as one of the three possible areas of functional emphasis for each librarian, and it creates a forum for this purpose, it does not indicate how the MIT Libraries Public Services will "provide" such a program, certainly a unified program. How does a "forum" ensure that a new idea like this happens? We have not up to this time had such a program; it has been up to each divisional library to design its own.
Another imbalance between reference and collections on the one hand, and instruction on the other, is that each divisional library has a reference coordinator and a collections manager, but not an instruction coordinator. All that each library is require to have is "at least one librarian who has selected instruction as an area of emphasis". That is a very different thing.
still to be addressed: When the question was presented at the meeting on Monday, it was stated that the support staff grade levels are an institute-wide problem. This may be so, but the libraries offer almost exclusively level 4 positions to support staff with almost no chance of moving higher in that grade level than the range you were hired at. This discrepancy means that very qualified people with specific skills and knowledge are getting paid less than people who type/answer phones in most departments. I know for a fact that other departments have changed level 4 to level 5 positions in the past either for a specific person who is in the job or because the job has expanded to include more work/responsibility. We are currently in a position where the more skills we acquire-the less we are worth unless we leave for another department in MIT or another institution entirely(evidence is the mass exodus of library staff to Harvard etc.). I think that the fact that support staff career paths are an issue tacked to the end of the report as something which hasn't been addressed yet sends a very clear message to us about our importance in the library organization and I for one find it extremely discouraging.
forums: The function of these forums is still unclear. For the professional staff, these would be a great place to broach not only MIT Libraries issues (e.g., how can we handle this major cut in collections budget across the libraries?), but also as a place where we could really address professional issues as a whole (e.g., in what direction should we move to deal with the reference questions of a rising portion on virtual users?) In other words, let's not make this a place where only problems are dealt with. Let's make it a proactive place to discuss issues of concern in the profession across the country.
intent/strengths: It's unclear how decision-making is moving down to lower levels. Can you elaborate?
comments on the proposed model(five div. libs, collection managers, Associate Head): Why is the Associate Head "probably" necessary? is it or isn't it?
I'm assuming the Associate Head could be also be a collection manager or a reference coordinator?
Access Services Librarian: The term "Access Librarian" confuses me. What will be the purpose of this position? Is it to manage shared stacks and other public space (ie, by Hum and Sci) in building 14 to act as a liaison of sorts between the head of Hum and the Head of Sci so space needs are adequately addressed and therefore "Access"-ible? Or will this position be a de facto head of "Access" services for the entire Libraries? Will this be a rewriting of Anne Tanguay's job, adding more responsibility to make it a professional position now that she is leaving?
other:
Something I haven't seen addressed in either the report or in the Town Meeting is the future of Public Services exempt staff. Will these positions be retained? If so, will there be different levels within the status so that someone who "just" supervises a unit might be an ExemptI where someone who is responsible for supervising a unit but also has significantly more system-wide responsibilities would be an ExemptII at a different level, with higher salary reward for those responsibilities. I've heard exempt staff making the same arguments that we support staff are making about asking to do more without any pay increases. I don't want my boss to leave, but I fear its coming.comments on the proposed model (five div. libs,collection managers,Associate Head): Need to recognize that links exist between components of merged libraries. Collections responsibilities and reference expertise transcends some of these new divisional library boundaries. It would be a waste not to preserve some of these links in the new model.
If possible, consider first the talent already here for the new Heads and Associate Heads and post remaining positions, which may be "line" positions.
job descriptions: Each academic department still needs a single contact who selects the books, sponsors appropriate electronic resources, identifies electronic journals, does the outreach, constructs and maintain the Web resources page(s), and serves as the initial contact for library related questions.
user focus: I assume that these groups will deal with services at the gross level, such as instruction and publicity of "generic services" such as document delivery, some electronic resources training, and access to materials outside of MITs collections.
Perhaps these groups would evaluate current services and propose macro-level solutions.
forums: I assume that these groups would be discussion groups rather than groups that make decisions.
ISP: If the super-ISP in Hayden only concerns Science staff, then they should call the shots. Decisions should not be made by those who never spend time dealing with Science users. The key to remember is that each divisional library serves quite different user populations. One size does not fit all.
These statistics should be considered as well:
Reference statistics| Nov 97 | Dec 97 | Jan 98 | |
| Science | 1010 | 923 | 982 |
| Dewey | 719 | 558 | 450 |
| Barker | 688 | 665 | 695 |
| Humanities | 555 | 355 | 394 |
| Rotch | 215 | 196 | 130 |
There are clear scale differences that may not be apparent in a pilot.
intent/strengths: Users want journals on the shelf when they need them, up-to-date monograph collections that they can browse and borrow, clean well-lighted places to study, electronic access to collections, a user-friendly catalog and indexes, and reference and instructional assistance when they need it. Fulfilling these needs is a function of the availability and allocation of resources. I do not see how this structural change substantially addresses these needs.
still to be addressed: Support staff need more training and more steps in classification levels. Teams (both short and long term) should be recognized once a year.
comments on the proposed model (five div. libs, collection managers, Associate Head): I sure hate to see this model evolve. No matter what one says about the position of a Divisional Librarian that position will still include a lot of time in meetings and to gain one more administrative position we in ESL (which also won't exist soon) must give up the VERY IMPPORTANT position of Librarian Specialist in Mech Eng and Materials Science. No administrator will be able to do the work this position requires in the department. Someone must be in charge of 2:009, our flagship entree into the MechE department. It is not fair to dump responsibility onto another librarian who is already carrying a heavy load within his/her department.
Too bad you scrapped the 3/Head - 5/Assoc Head model which I saw as a much more reasonalbe use of our very limited resources. we already have too many administrators!
job descriptions: This scenario bothers me most of all. I was at Thursday's meeting and can see that I am not alone. This model looks like it would work well in a large state univesity where there are 30,000 undergrads, most of them are in the liberal arts, and probable most of the librarians area lso Liberal Arts generalists. This is not the case at MIT. In ESL we have worked hard to hire librarians with subject expertise and now have that in Chem, EE and Civil ENg. In addition we have several other librarians who have other science degrees. I very much consider myself a specialist, a representative of the Libraries to my academic department(s), and of the Dep't(s) back to the Libraries. I have worked very dilligently in the past few years to establish a presence in my dep't and to understand the needs of this group. They know to come to me in person, by phone or by e-mail when they need something, whether it's a need for a new book, help tracking down a piece of information, or to ask me to do an instruction for their class. That includes faculty and students. My science/engineering background gives me credibility when I deal with them.
I hope you will note that much of the dismay at this model comes from the ESL librarians. We are the ones saying loudly that we are not generalists and that you squander our talents by making us so. Please keep in mind that this is an institute of Science and Engineering and understand that folks in those disciplines have different needs than an undergrad writing a paper. It is too bad that there was so little ESL representatin on the OITF as it is turning our to be the pivotal committee.
Please don't insult those of us who try to point out the weaknesses of this model by saying we are old entrenched curmudgeons who'll never change as happened at Thursday's meeting. The resistance to this model seems to me to be coming from across the board at ESL and we have about 50% new staff hired in the past couple of years. Please take us seriously.
I think the idea of a group which is responsibile for general orientation and which design instructional materials the rest of us can modify and use (with attribution) is a great idea. But not a group that takes over the classroom when there is a need to instruct the group that identifies me with their library help.
Sorry to be so longwinded but I see a disaster in the making here and I fear all our hard work within Sci and Eng departments will be lost and much good will squandered.
ISP: Be careful that there be a very equitable distribution of labor here between circ, Sci and Hum. I actually like the idea expressed during Thursday's meeting to move HUM ref and lan to the first floor so that all ref is together and perhaps use the second floor for books and study space, away from the noise of a super ISP.
I'm also wary of too much work's being dumped on circ staff. i fear there will be long stretches of time when there will be one lone circ person trying to cope with circ, ref and maybe also Reserves.
comments on the proposed model (five div. libs, collection managers, Associate Head): We would seem to be hiring too many administrators and not enough front line people. I thought the point of this process was to give more decision-making to those lower in the administrative structure.
job descriptions: Could this be voluntary? Some people seem to like what they are doing now. Volunteers might have a better attitude about joining these groups.
user focus: What would this group do? I have never heard any specifics on this.
forums: This is a good idea--it will help with communication.
ISP: I thought that one of the points of this process was to help improve jobs. In particular, we wanted to make the best use of librarians' time. Then comes along the ISP proposal (thanks to the Service Priorities tf). In this model, librarians will not only do reference, but also be asked to answer general info questions and check out books. Is this making good use of librarians' time?? My fear is that staff cutbacks will leave fewer staff at these ISPs and librarians will end up doing circ at these desks more than they want to. An ISP pilot is a good idea, but will it prepare us for the Superduper ISP at Hayden? Can we anticipate staff cuts in the future that may alter the staffing at these desks?
ILB: This needs to be studied. Thanks for not making a quick decision on this.
Access Services Librarian: This needs to be studied.
current branches: This makes sense -- at least the branches seem to work well.
intent/strengths: Let's hope that these new committees will have some real power to make decisions.
other: Thanks to the OITF for taking on a difficult job and for obtaining so much feedback! Will your job ever end?
forums: Are these forums going to be chat groups or will they have the chance to actively help decide on the way things are done?
ISP: Currently, librarians staff the reference desk, but circulation is not staffed by librarians and the desk is taken over by students in the evenings. Will the ISP only be for directional questions and check-out at night? How will the job lines be crossed here? Will the circulation staff be expected to answer reference questions and will librarians be checking out books? How does this affect the varying pay scales? It seems grossly unfair to have people with such varied specialties and training all being expected to do the same job but with very different levels of compensation.
ILB: It seems to make sense to consolidate ILB and Doc. Services. It would help users to only have to go to one place for their borrowing/copying needs. It is also time to eliminate the rapdoc service which duplicates Document Services. It's very confusing for patrons to have to pay for copies in one department and get them free through another. Maybe Document services should be merged with ILB and given access to library funds to help facilitate rapid document delivery.
intent/strengths: I don't see any chance for decision making in lower levels. The lower levels are presumably support staff and professional staff who haven't been addressed in this model. It seems that the librarians are the ones who are the focus of this so far, and they are being asked to basically do all of the same things that they always have and maybe more.
job descriptions: What does enabling collections to concentrate on collections actually mean?
If it means help from support staff in processing, what will that staff stop doing in order to help the selector?
The Web should be a fourth item that librarians could pick. Or some kind of local ITL. Even though each area has an electronic component, the library still could have an electronic specialist -- one of the librarians who knows more about search engines, Web structure and design, printing from e-journals, etc. -- all the things that Nina D-M teaches us. This person could be a trainer of trainers.
Does a librarian have a choice NOT to pick a primary and secondary area? Can he/she just say, sorry, I like what I'm doing now? I'm the complete subject librarian, with reference, collections, outreach, and instruction in my subject?
What if a librarian wants simply to excel at what he's doing, and not take on other responsibilities, such as for a system-wide group? or for a user group?
user focus: What if there are not enough librarians to go around? What if there are more user groups than the unit has librarians?
How will support staff participate? What about other work? How does this change support staff positions and job responsibilities?
What if no one in the group picks instruction?
ISP: What if a unit needs a physical change before the ISP can be initiated?
other: The point was made that selectors need help in their work, perhaps from students. What about reference staff -- couldn't they use the help of students also?
Are circulation staff also to choose a specialty? Either information or technology? Again, does everyone have to do so?
For support staff, aren't you just asking them to do more? What are we going to stop doing, so that local support staff would have the time to learn a specialty and work on Web projects...
How do the branches fit into this model? How does the branch librarian choose a primary and secondary area when all areas have to be covered?
Why are so many of the library support jobs at the IV level? In other parts of the Institute there are many more Vs. Is this fair? Can someone check on this?
comments on the proposed model (five div. libs, collection managers, Associate Head): I like the ideas presented in the model.
user focus: I assume that "professional staff" includes non-librarian admin/supervisory staff?
ISP: Would the "super ISP" fall under the administration of the Science Library, or the Humanities Library? Or both?
Access Services Librarian: To whom would the Access Services Librarian report?
still to be addressed: Where are non-librarian administrative staff in this model? Will they also choose primary/secondary specializations? What career paths will be developed for them?
LTE's positions and roles need to be better-defined too.
other: Good use of this form, particularly the links back and forth to the report; it's helpful to be able to read the specifics before responding to the proposals.
Hi Everyone,
After thinking about the proposed model over the weekend, three points have
really stuck in my mind as thinks I feel strongly about. I really think
that we need to consider these things before we try to implement the
proposed primary/secondary" model.
Thank you for giving me yet another opportunity to voice my thoughts.
--Cheryl
forums: Office assistants and LTEs should be recognized as a significant group and also meet in forums.
Each forum should have decision making authority rather than simply a communication or recommendation function.
still to be addressed: Why wait for Human Resources? The Libraries could set a model.
comments on the proposed model (five div. libs,collection managers,Associate Head): Although I have serious concerns about the merged units, especially the amount of time spent travelling from one to the other, I have come to the conclusion that it would probably be better to keep the units merged, and allow the current vacancies to be filled with front line staff. Alternatively, the Divisional Librarians should have regularly scheduled hours at the reference desk (or ISP if it is implemented); at the very least, the Divisional Librarians should be able to fill in at the reference desk in case of emergencies. I say this because the total head count in the MIT Libraries has decreased in the years since there were 5 divisional libraries. One of the advantages of the merged units is flexibility in using staff to fill in at reference and circulation desks in emergencies.
job descriptions: As I understand the concept, it is sound. In reality, I'm not sure that it will work unless there is a change in the way we provide answers to users questions. Unless support staff also work at a reference desk (or ISP), or unless we cut back on the number of hours we provide a person at a desk to answer "reference" questions, I'm not sure selectors will have any more time to devote to selecting. If a unit is committed to having x number of "reference" hours, desk coverage has to take precedence over other activities. The fewer the number of bodies providing reference service, the less other activites get done.
user focus: This has a lot of potential. Instead of 7 groups, how about 5 (3 Divisional Librarians, the Archivist and Head of Doc. Services). For one thing, some units may not have 7 professional staff members, even if you include Circulation and Processing Supervisors. Participation in these groups would be an add-on to almost everyone's job, which seems like it would take time away from one's area of specialization.
forums: The role of these groups needs to be clearly defined. Are they discussion groups or decision making bodies? As described on p. 12 of the OITF report, coordination and communication are the primary reasons for these groups to exist, although one group is described as having decision making authority.
ISP: ISP's in the units should allow all staff interested in working with the public an opportunity to do so. ISP's could also allow for more flexible staffing. Perhaps this model would allow some collections services people to spend time performing public service. Input from the Branches should be sought on this since, in reality, they already have an ISP.
ILB: Obtaining materials our users need, whether it is from storage, across campus or across the country should be a high priority. We should find the fastest way possible to do this, using the least number of staff. It does seem like merging ILB and Document Services might allow for the development of expertise. Perhaps Doc. Services could then market document delivery beyond the campus. As distance learning becomes more prominent document delivery will be more important.
Access Services Librarian: This could work, or it could put someone in the position of being pulled between competing needs of the various inhabitants of building 14. This person's relationship to the ISP would need to be carefully thought out.
current branches: It would be nice if the branch staff could be more integrated into the divisional library staff, but with so few staff in the branches this doesn't seem possible. It is unclear whether the branch staff would also choose a primary and secondary area of specialization; it's hard to imagine how they could.
intent/strengths: I see how this model intends to create a solid user focus and how the functional groups could create a sense of systemness; I am not sure I see how decision making is being moved down to lower levels in the organization (unless the functional groups have decision making authority).
still to be addressed: If people continued to split their time between 2 libraries, would they have to (or be able to) choose a primary and secondary area of focus?
other: No matter how hard I try, I find it very difficult to see how this proposal relieves us of the burden of trying to do more with less, especially in terms of staff. There are some solid suggestions for making us more user focused, but they do seem like add-ons to what we are already doing.
Although my comments may sound negative, I am actually very impressed with the way the redefinition process has gone and I have confidence that we will emerge a better, more cohesive system.
Access Services Librarian: It is good idea to have someone in charge of Building 14 public space. The leadership has been there all along in that Science staff knew what was necessary to solve the problems, but did not have the funding. Different attempts over the years to address the problem have portioned out control to too many people, too many layers to wade through to get anything done. However, the key problems with maintenance have been lack of staff time (for stacking mostly), too many books in not enough space (storage), and no custodial cleaning schedule for the Hayden Basement. These are actually Libraries or Institute problems that amount to lack of funding, essentially. Empowering a committee with a budget (a serious budget)and the ability to make decisions is a sound idea.
still to be addressed: Career paths for support staff would be useful. Why not build and nurture a solid base of public service oriented staff, instead of forcing staff to look elsewhere to make a wage that suits this high-priced burg? Support staff are undervalued in terms of pay. And that is not just an Institute issue. It is particular to the Libraries, where wages are lower across the board, if one only compares one's pay stub to what the salary ranges are for the various support staff levels.
The ISP is going to be interesting. Since it is not thought out at this point, I assume the department heads will determine how to carve up existing support staff positions to make it work. The implication is that some of the ref desk duties of librarians will be shifted to support staff as part of the Information desk aspect. This will put those staff affected into a similar opportunity/dilemma as LTEs who are trying to figure out how much the Libraries values their acquisition of new skills or duties.
ISP: I'd like to say again that I think an ISP in Hayden is not workable. Things that work in a small environment do not always translate well to a larger environment. I think it is essential to maintain a separate Science Ref Desk. We have a LAN and a collection of specialized books; science ref is time-consuming (30 minutes not unusual) and requires concentration and a subject background; referrals do not work in science except for long-term projects - scientists need information right away. I would like to add that no one on the organization task force has ever worked at the Sci Ref desk, which is very different from engineering. It is still Oct 6, although after 5pm, so I hope I am within deadline.