Dear Mayor Jones:
Saint Louis Public Library has the potential to
transform Saint Louis City, but proper focus is needed. What patrons want the
most are: available meeting and conference rooms, office services, including
fax machines, notaries, on-site instruction for computer programs, assistance
with resumes and business development, early opening times, especially at
Central, and jobs at the library- there are many people that want to work at
SLPL. *
Much of the library’s business is opaque, and I
think it is likely that the much-touted number of 93,000 library cards is
inaccurate. However, even if it is twice that, that is still only two
thirds of the city’s population, and many cardholders are from the counties.
Library cards should be automatic for every city
resident, and services should be focused on residents. County residents and
tourists do not need the free $5 monthly print credit. And all City residents,
even those that owe for lost or damaged materials, should have computer
privileges
All full-time city jobs should belong to city
residents, including the library. ** SLPL is funded solely on property taxes,
in perpetuity and written into the City Charter. And the library receives
payment on assessed values (meaning they get one half cent on the dollar of the
total assessed value, $5 billion in 2019, even though the city collects less
than a third of that).
The minimum wage for all library jobs should be
$15 an hour, and the two most important and vital jobs at the library – the
clerks and the janitors- need their pay scales increased. ***
All full-time city jobs should require retirement
at age 65 and pay enough so that retirement is possible at that time.
Older people have a lot to contribute, and this is not ageism, but a
recognition that retirement is necessary so that government institutions and
agencies remain invigorated and allow for “fresh blood.” Part-time, advisory,
and volunteer opportunities can be made available.
And there needs to be stronger rules in place,
about family members (by blood or marriage) working together. This creates
factions, and unfair scheduling accommodations for commuting, among other
things.
Especially among the highly paid managerial and
executive positions, there are too many “lifers” that have become
entrenched. Regular job audits should be conducted by every employee.
Every single job at the library should have a “book of knowledge” or guidebook
that explains exactly what that job does. No one should be “indispensable”, and
no tasks should be left undone because no one else is trained to do the job.
Moreover, the Library does not need such highly
paid executives. In a city where the median income is $65,000 for white people,
and $33,000 for black people, to have three top executives, all
earning over $125,000 (and the Director makes $185,000) is outrageous. And
there are another 9 positions that are salaried over $80,000, which quite
frankly, should be the very top salary level.
These highly paid executives are out of touch
with the patrons, the public, and overly focused on producing marketing
materials that do not address the real needs of library patrons and residents.
The Foundation raises about $1.5 million, but at least $250k of that goes to
salaries for the Foundation staff. (The salaries, I believe, come from the tax
money. Again, why is this opaque?)
Managers can rotate the Director positions, and
the outreach to communities should be done by the staff at the branches. And
human resources, especially, needs to be restructured. The city of St Louis
does not need a library Human resources executive that makes $99,000 a year
with a staff of three people.
I also encourage you to replace every member of
the Board and set term limits. They have served too long and become too
comfortable with the executives and the major donors. Meetings are often
cancelled, rarely posted publicly and the public is often discouraged from
attending. The meetings serve little purpose other than the highly paid
executives to quote circulation and gate count statistics. The library needs
fresh eyes.
Branches need to be assessed, too. Several are
redundant and costly. Charing Cross is in an area overserved. (University City
library, Washington University, and SLPL’s Cabbane- one of the remaining
Carnegie branches, and a building that requires frequent maintenance) are all
within two miles of each other. Charing Cross only has one computer terminal
and needs to either close for lunch or have an employee travel from another
branch.
Central Express detracts from Central itself and requires
coverage from another branch for lunches and staff.
Both Marketplace and Machacek need to be audited.
It is likely that one is redundant, and Marketplace often needs coverage from
another branch, like Charing Cross and Central Express.
Finally, I have written to you before about the
need to recognize the service that SLPL, and all libraries, provides to
homeless populations. Libraries provide the only public toilets and keep human
waste off the streets. Libraries provide shelter, computer services, and a
place for outreach workers to concentrate efforts. In addition to the NGO for
transient populations that I have suggested before, the library needs at least
one social worker on staff, particularly at Central.
I have made all these suggestions, and more, to
the library itself, both as a (former) employee and a patron. I was fired,
unsurprisingly. And as an employee, I was told in no uncertain terms by the
manager that fired me that I would be banned from attending any Board meetings.
I am not seeking revenge or a library job, but the continued irresponsible
fiscal management is intolerable. I have waited almost three years to address
these issues publicly, in hopes that the executives and managers would make
real changes. They have not.
I am happy to assist with implementing any of
these suggestions and can also present you with a full restructuring plan if
you would like. But either way, I hope you will look to improving the services
that SLPL provides to the city. It has great potential, and many good employees
and managers.
Thank you for your time,
Rachael Cailliach
* African-American men, in particular, seem to be
under-represented, but in my observation, apply in great numbers, and apply
repeatedly. I’d like to see job application statistics on all city jobs- i.e.,
demographics of who applied, versus who is interviewed.
**I am not suggesting firing all non-residents en
masse, but this rule should be put in effect immediately. And if every
employee is required to audit their job, non-performers can be removed, and
places made for city residents. And this can be combined with creating
more jobs and job training at the library, especially part-time for students
and underemployed residents.
*** One of the biggest fiascos I have witnessed
was in 2018 when library executives decided to raise pay scales and hired a big
consulting firm. The actual employees were not consulted. The consulting firm
was horribly inefficient. At one point they assigned every job that had “Tech”
in the title to market averages for IT salaries. People that worked as “techs”-
a title given to employees that are advanced and useful but lack the required
education level, usually a degree in Library sciences, and also the “techs”
that performed actual repairs on damaged materials- were then notified that
they would be receiving these salaries! It created a lot of crushed
expectations, bad feelings, and reinforced the opinions that the executives
were simply wasting taxpayer money and pretending they oversaw a large
corporation, not a public library. The library had underpaid employees for many
years, so it was a start, but it was very badly managed, and the wages assigned
are still not fair or correct.
