Wrangling, Corporate-style

In two weeks, I will split my single library collection into two satellite libraries. Well, the splitting is already completed, on paper anyway. No, what happens in two weeks is the physical division and relocation of the library to its two new accommodations.

This comes as part of my law firm's renovation of our downtown TO office space. Each and every office, corridor, cubicle and kitchen is being re-created according to a designer's imagination and specification. The library, once a single, large and dusty room situated on one floor of our two-floor office tower space will become two, smaller libraries, one for each floor and holding content specific to that floor's user group/legal practice area need.

Splitting a library collection according to user need/practice area takes a lot of work, as you can imagine. Everything from updating the newly created OPAC, colour-coding spine labels to make things easier for lawyers, actually determining which text will go where, duplicating regularly accessed print reference resources, all while managing the library on a daily basis makes for involved times.

STOP!

Now, throw both a Building Committee and a Library Committee into the fray!

GO!

I made a mistake. This professional presented a two-year projection of library services and space requirements designed to maximize services while minimizing physical footprint to the Building Committee via the Library Committee. This professional made a gross error by presenting accurate physical measurements of linear-foot shelving requirements. This professional did not pad or exaggerate figures. This professional should have padded and exaggerated the figures ... a lot. The library was granted 20% less than its minimal footage requirement.

Now, my library is small. By the standards of other libraries, my print holdings are miniscule. It is a single research/reference/administrative/all-hats-worn librarian, full-time operation. Oh, sure, I could sorely use the assistance of a technician, but funds being what they are.... However, regardless of size, we all know that at the very least … well … you gotta have space to place what you gotta have on hand. On top of this, the physical space requirements of libraries change on a daily basis as new materials are added and old materials are removed from the collection. It is the library as organism story.

For a two-year projection, after heavy weeding of old or disused materials, I presented a requirement of 530 linear feet to shelve the collection. At the very minimum, the library requires 500 linear feet to hold the current collection, heavily weeded collection. The library has been granted a total of 440 linear feet to hold the complete, heavily weeded collection. An additional 60 linear feet has been granted to allow for a total of 500 linear feet, but this is on paper only. The additional shelving will not be built. In Corporate Speak, the additional shelving has been “Deferred”. This roughly translates into “The Building and Library Committees recognise the requirements of the Library, will appear to grant additional footage, but will not actually build the additional footage.” Why was 60 feet deferred? Simply, it was deferred because library shelving is ugly and expensive. Quote/unquote.

How will I fit a size 10 foot into a size 8 shoe? By doing what libraries right around the world are required to do: justify holding retention by rate of use and alternate (read: electronic) availability.

Step 1: First to go are the older series of ongoing bound journal subscriptions. Though their colourful and grand spines look wonderful on the shelves of law libraries and are integral to legal research and the practice of law, their return on library space/use can be low. So, in my case, out are all but the current series of Carswell’s Practice Cases, the Dominion Law Reports, Ontario Reports, for example. Though distasteful to do so, these materials are going into off-site storage with their continued retention pending review. The content of these publications is available and searchable via our electronic subscriptions WESTLAWeCarswell, DLR Plus and QuickLaw. Yes, questions about duplication of services arise (i.e., maintaining both print and electronic access), but I’ll deal with them once the move is over. At this stage, if a hard copy is required, it can be recalled from off-site storage within 24-hours, at a cost, or accessed by the patron traveling to another, larger library.

Step 2: Yet another weeding of texts is under way, this time with no allowance for bruised egos. Partners love to have older editions of their publications filling in-house library shelves. Well, if partners will not approve sufficient space to house the working collection, then all ‘archival’, or non-working materials must go. It is into storage, donation or recycling with the lot. Sorry folks, this is a lean, mean legal-research machine: updated editions of current holdings only, with the old edition tossed; replacement of print content when an electronic alternative becomes available, etc.

Hopefully, I will be able to shoe-horn the current collection into the reduced space allowance by employing the above mentioned methods. However, how am I to address ongoing collection growth? Steps 1 and 2 will continue ad nauseum.

Oh, the joy of my recently discovered 2004 article Executing a library move; a planned approach to moving your library by Catherine Dimenstein in Information Outlook. It is a good read containing useful recommendations, most of which I was happy to acknowledge as ‘done’. Certainly, there are several publications available to assist in planning a library move. However, most apropos is Ms. Dimenstein’s underlining the importance of a close collaboration between librarian and architect when designing a new library to ensure that library requirements are adequately addressed.

I wish I had been more aggressive in my interactions with the Library Committee (consisting of lawyers, IT and bean-counters, all with individual veto of the librarian’s recommendations). I wish I had knocked down the doors to Building Committee meetings and communicated library requirements directly to the architect. Then, I wish I had been permitted to pass beyond the hallowed Glass Ceiling to continue the argument before the Executive Board. I wish a lot of things, especially the inspiration of how to deal with this extra stack of print material, roughly the height of a seven-story building when stacked end-on-end, that I cannot fit into my new space allowance.

An ongoing story. The postings will continue. I've started smoking and drinking a fair amount, but the bastards won’t get me down.

Docketed out the door?

Last Friday, the Director of Finances for my firm took me out for lunch. "Uh-oh", said I.

I was informed that, henceforth, I must docket my research time. Further, I must docket a minimum of 250 hours over the next six months (i.e., starting at 500 hours per annum with likelihood to increase). It was indicated subtly that my salary (and job) is now dependent upon my hours docketed. I am charging at $160.00 p/h to the client. My salary breaks down to approximately $26 p/h before taxes. I wonder to whom the difference will go?

I support docketing research time to associated case work. To me, it is common sense, as is client charge-back when using resources such as eCarswell and QL. However, in making my salary dependent upon docketed hours, any activity that cannot be docketed loses priority and will fall to the wayside. It becomes a matter of my job security. Thus, to the wayside will fall all non-case-specific library work, including the day-to-day management of the library, information literacy programs that I am expected to develop and present, and the enormous amount of 'forensic librarianship' that is still required to pull this library from its previous state and into the 21st century.

Also, I am a professional librarian and researcher. I produce product quickly and efficiently. Where an articling student or lawyer can/will spend two days researching a question, I can usually produce in a fraction of the time. With docketing, efficiency is no longer 'productive' towards the necessity of logging hours to maintain a salary. To fulfill docketing requirements, I wonder whether I must slow the speed of my return. After all, I must wait for someone to come to me with a research request before I can docket time. Then, I must maximize the opportunity.

Now, librarianship aside, the introduction of a docketing-dependent salary changes the terms of my contract of employment with employer. I am unsure how to approach this matter. At this stage, no new agreements are in writing or signed, yet the expectation by my employer that I abide by these new 'terms' exists. My salary is still paltry; in fact, it is a good $13k less than the students I instruct and assist on an ongoing basis.

(The explanation recently provided to me by the Chair of the Library Committee concerning the difference between articling student / librarian salary was that good law students are hard to find. And good, experienced law librarians are easy to find? This is from the same person who believes I can and should get my docketed hours up to 1600 per annum. Doesn't sound like much? Well, it works out to around 6 2/3 hours of docketable research per day, in addition to all other library duties required by a single librarian operation. NOTE: I'm contracted to work an 8 hour day comprised of 6 1/2 work + 1 1/2 cumulative break time.)

I am rather at a loss. Are other law firm associated librarians expected to produce to a fixed minimum rate of docketable hours? My initial research indicates not. So much of what we do is out of the realm of 'billable'. We do ask for matter numbers as a matter of course because we want to recover as much as we can in costs. My experience with other firms, and the experience of colleagues with whom I have discussed this issue, is that most lawyers see law librarianship as a service. Whether or not our service is billable is immaterial, so long as the lawyers get what they need.

Incidently, I will mention that I am again seeking new employment. Though it would benefit tremendously, I do not believe the corporate culture of my current employer allows for the professional services of an MLS/MLIS.

I was graciously told during the lunch meeting that I may have anything on the menu. I had a couple of large glasses of wine.