Grandt, a librarian at the Brooklyn Technical High School, was forced to pay a $500 fine and admit in a three page stipulation that he had violated the city ethics code when he promoted his daughter’s new book. His daughter, Eve Grandt, had provided illustrations for a graphic novel of William Shakespeare’s Macbeth published by Wiley Publishing.
In the following article Grandt claims he was merely a proud father who wanted to show off his daughter’s work. In the bi-monthly library newsletter he is responsible for circulating Grandt wrote: “Best New Book: Grandt, Eve, Shakespeare’s Macbeth-The Manga Edition” written under the title “Grandt’s Picks.” He also used a library display table to exhibit several copies of the book with the sign “Best Book Ever Written,” gave away free copies of the book if people were interested, and donated a copy to the library. Grandt explained that he had donated many books in addition to his daughter’s and that he did not think that his actions crossed the line. He remarked “I am supposed to, as part of my job, display new books and encourage the kids to read new books…So here, I displayed my daughter’s book and encouraged the kids to read it and am told I had done something illegal.”
The Brooklyn Conflict of Interests Board sent Grandt a letter telling him he could lose his job and be stripped of his teaching license. They also wanted to impose a $1000 fine. Ultimately, Grandt negotiated the fine down to $500 and removed the books from the library display table; including the one he had donated.
The Board declined to comment on their reasoning for the case though Grandt claimed they alleged his daughter would get twenty cents in royalties per copy sold but he had given the copies away and it is unclear on how the conflicts board interpreted the ethics code in relation to Grandt’s case.
Did Robert Grandt’s actions really warrant the attention of the Conflict of Interests Board? Did they overstep a line themselves with such a harsh response? At what point does a father’s pride cross the line and become the pursuit of self interest? As future librarians and information specialists we have a responsibility to encourage people to read and to expose them to books both popular and obscure. Certainly Shakespeare’s Macbeth could not be exactly considered unnoticed and having it illustrated by a local artist might even be a source of pride for the community. So, we have a book, an accepted classic, illustrated by a talented local artist, donated to the library, even available for free if interested, but the problem lies with the librarian at the library happening to be a parent of the artist. This is a case of policy out of control.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Bad database information impacts many sources
Many people use databases in their line of work, be they librarians or law enforcement. However, what if these databases contain incorrect or false information?
In this recent article, a man was arrested after a warrant was found for him in an adjoining county. Meth and a gun were found in his car. However, there was no actual warrant and the information was never removed from the database. Nevertheless, he was indicted, unable to throw out the evidence, and sentenced to 27 months in jail. This is a violation of his fourth amendment right, which guards against unreasonable search and seizure.
False information can spread from source to source, like the one bad apple adage. “In these interlinked databases, one error can spread like a disease, infecting every system it touches and condemning the individual to whom this error refers to suffer substantial delay, harassment, and improper arrest,” EPIC director Marc Rotenberg states in a friend of the court brief. I’ve read many sources while researching that were incorrect—and they shared sources. Obviously, these sources aren’t reliable—but they were written for academic journals. If all of those sources are able to link and be regarded as professional, what kinds of bogus information could the government be sharing as accurate?
This information is not solely available to the government—though the Information Sharing Environment (ISE), data is shared between federal, state, local, tribal and commercial entities. The ISE seems to be mainly about preventing terrorism, which makes it all the more dangerous. If the shared information is erroneous, it affects the credibility of such investigations when conducted with authentic data, not to mention the wrongly affected citizen. It also affects the credibility of professionals who are required to cooperate with the authorities.
While some may think this problem exists mainly in the government sector, this is not the case. The Supreme Court reviewed whether arrests made using inaccurate information are lawful. If the Supreme Court decides it is legal, the ramifications are far-reaching. In an age where citizens are constantly under surveillance by the government, where will they draw the line? How will this affect the Patriot Act? Although libraries would still probably choose to require a court order, what if the court order is drawn up on false charges?
For more information, check out EPIC's Web page about the court case.
In this recent article, a man was arrested after a warrant was found for him in an adjoining county. Meth and a gun were found in his car. However, there was no actual warrant and the information was never removed from the database. Nevertheless, he was indicted, unable to throw out the evidence, and sentenced to 27 months in jail. This is a violation of his fourth amendment right, which guards against unreasonable search and seizure.
False information can spread from source to source, like the one bad apple adage. “In these interlinked databases, one error can spread like a disease, infecting every system it touches and condemning the individual to whom this error refers to suffer substantial delay, harassment, and improper arrest,” EPIC director Marc Rotenberg states in a friend of the court brief. I’ve read many sources while researching that were incorrect—and they shared sources. Obviously, these sources aren’t reliable—but they were written for academic journals. If all of those sources are able to link and be regarded as professional, what kinds of bogus information could the government be sharing as accurate?
This information is not solely available to the government—though the Information Sharing Environment (ISE), data is shared between federal, state, local, tribal and commercial entities. The ISE seems to be mainly about preventing terrorism, which makes it all the more dangerous. If the shared information is erroneous, it affects the credibility of such investigations when conducted with authentic data, not to mention the wrongly affected citizen. It also affects the credibility of professionals who are required to cooperate with the authorities.
While some may think this problem exists mainly in the government sector, this is not the case. The Supreme Court reviewed whether arrests made using inaccurate information are lawful. If the Supreme Court decides it is legal, the ramifications are far-reaching. In an age where citizens are constantly under surveillance by the government, where will they draw the line? How will this affect the Patriot Act? Although libraries would still probably choose to require a court order, what if the court order is drawn up on false charges?
For more information, check out EPIC's Web page about the court case.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
“Hybrid” or Professionals?
The changes that occurred in the library science profession during the last 2 decades didn’t affect the library resources and services only, but the library staff as well.
A new kind of employees appears at the Academic Libraries named “Hybrid professionals.” The Council of Library and Information Resources (CLR) defines those employees as “Ph.D. holders who bridge the gap between the library and academic department”. Those employees are coming from different backgrounds (business, philosophy, science, etc…). However, they do not have any library education or training. In some academic libraries they are called “Liaison” or “Subject Specialist”, and they play a coordination role between the library and academic departments in acquisitions and reference services.
Those professionals usually get higher salaries and they are considered faculty members who are supposed to publish. In fact, those professionals are not performing instructional duties, their duties are quite the same like traditional MLS holders but they work in a specialized environment. Why they should be differentiated from traditional librarians in term of salary and position?
In my opinion, the “Hybrid professionals” enrich the academic library environment; however a library degree should always be the first requirement for any library position together with other degrees that may be required to fit some special positions. For example, the “liaison” positions at Wayne State University Libraries are held by persons who hold an MLS degree and another Master. The library training provided by library programs cannot be acquired by experience, it is a way of thinking and continuation of the experience of previous professional librarians.
With no doubt, the interaction between traditional librarians and “Hybrid professionals” will result in strengthening the library in providing higher level of services. Yet, the traditional librarians are worried about the future of their career. What if a MLS degree will not be required anymore in the library profession? What is a library degree for if it is not required in the only field that it is used in?
Also, giving higher salaries and work benefits for employees who do not hold a MLS degree will keep students away from the library science programs and result in degradation in the number of professionals, and professional librarians will became an endangered species.
Link to original article:
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6598103.html?q=professional+issues
A new kind of employees appears at the Academic Libraries named “Hybrid professionals.” The Council of Library and Information Resources (CLR) defines those employees as “Ph.D. holders who bridge the gap between the library and academic department”. Those employees are coming from different backgrounds (business, philosophy, science, etc…). However, they do not have any library education or training. In some academic libraries they are called “Liaison” or “Subject Specialist”, and they play a coordination role between the library and academic departments in acquisitions and reference services.
Those professionals usually get higher salaries and they are considered faculty members who are supposed to publish. In fact, those professionals are not performing instructional duties, their duties are quite the same like traditional MLS holders but they work in a specialized environment. Why they should be differentiated from traditional librarians in term of salary and position?
In my opinion, the “Hybrid professionals” enrich the academic library environment; however a library degree should always be the first requirement for any library position together with other degrees that may be required to fit some special positions. For example, the “liaison” positions at Wayne State University Libraries are held by persons who hold an MLS degree and another Master. The library training provided by library programs cannot be acquired by experience, it is a way of thinking and continuation of the experience of previous professional librarians.
With no doubt, the interaction between traditional librarians and “Hybrid professionals” will result in strengthening the library in providing higher level of services. Yet, the traditional librarians are worried about the future of their career. What if a MLS degree will not be required anymore in the library profession? What is a library degree for if it is not required in the only field that it is used in?
Also, giving higher salaries and work benefits for employees who do not hold a MLS degree will keep students away from the library science programs and result in degradation in the number of professionals, and professional librarians will became an endangered species.
Link to original article:
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6598103.html?q=professional+issues
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Orphans Could Expand Library Collections
An Orphan Works bill recently passed in the Senate. You can read a related article here. This bill would allow orphan works, works whose author or creator cannot be identified for copyright permissions, to be used, even though they are still protected under copyright. Those who wish to use the orphan works must first attempt to locate the copyright owner for permission.
This seems to be a great way for libraries to be able to digitize orphan works so that they are available to more people. It also makes it easier to archive and restore works that are currently restricted by copyright and deteriorating, waiting for the copyright to expire because the original creator cannot be located or is unknown.
One section of the bill that I think needs some clarification is the caveat requiring users to make a reasonable effort to find the copyright owner. What constitutes a reasonable effort? Who decides when enough searching has been done? How is the search to be documented? Since the copyright owner is able to make a claim to the work at a later date, it is important to know exactly what the requirements of the search are. It is also important to iron out the meaning of “negotiating in good faith for a reasonable compensation,” which is done when copyright holders identify themselves.
As the article states, libraries and other non-profit users would not be required to compensate copyright holders for use of their works. This could be an important issue for libraries, however, if the bill is stalled in the House because of unanswered questions about compensation. Satisfactorily allaying fears and answering questions will be the key to getting the bill to pass through the House, as it did through the Senate.
The Orphan Works bill seems like a fair way to get orphan works back into the mainstream and allow copyright holders to receive compensation when they identify themselves. As long as the reasonable effort for searching for copyright holders is clearly defined and not abused, this bill seems to protect them as well.
For some information on the opposing viewpoint, see the end of this Library Journal article.
This seems to be a great way for libraries to be able to digitize orphan works so that they are available to more people. It also makes it easier to archive and restore works that are currently restricted by copyright and deteriorating, waiting for the copyright to expire because the original creator cannot be located or is unknown.
One section of the bill that I think needs some clarification is the caveat requiring users to make a reasonable effort to find the copyright owner. What constitutes a reasonable effort? Who decides when enough searching has been done? How is the search to be documented? Since the copyright owner is able to make a claim to the work at a later date, it is important to know exactly what the requirements of the search are. It is also important to iron out the meaning of “negotiating in good faith for a reasonable compensation,” which is done when copyright holders identify themselves.
As the article states, libraries and other non-profit users would not be required to compensate copyright holders for use of their works. This could be an important issue for libraries, however, if the bill is stalled in the House because of unanswered questions about compensation. Satisfactorily allaying fears and answering questions will be the key to getting the bill to pass through the House, as it did through the Senate.
The Orphan Works bill seems like a fair way to get orphan works back into the mainstream and allow copyright holders to receive compensation when they identify themselves. As long as the reasonable effort for searching for copyright holders is clearly defined and not abused, this bill seems to protect them as well.
For some information on the opposing viewpoint, see the end of this Library Journal article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)