Separate from this project, for now, is our shelving crisis. The technology that moves the shelves is the same tech that was originally installed 20+ years ago (Vogel Library installed electronic compact shelving in 1999 but did not purchase a maintenance plan). Glitches and major breakdowns have increased in the last ten years, leading to some patrons not being able to access the item they need when they need it. Several solutions exist, but no decision has been made yet.
In addition to the technical issues, the shelves do not comply with accessibility standards. A few of the shelves, when open fully, are the correct number of inches apart to allow for the entrance of wheelchairs and other movement-support vehicles, but most of the shelves are not wide enough. Along with that, shelving books on the very highest and very lowest shelves also limits accessibility. While ADA compliance doesn't prohibit using floor- and ceiling-level shelves, we aren't interested in doing the bare minimum for people who are already facing mobility obstacles. We want to do better than the minimum, especially since the "minimum," according to laws, is often not enough. Since one of our library's goals is to create inclusive, safe spaces that facilitate collaboration, engagement, communication, and ethical educational development while respecting the diversity of the Wartburg community, addressing accessibility needs to be part of the conversation in any shelving solution.
Updating all the technology will cost at least $350,000. This is the preferred option in order to keep the same amount of space for our print collection--after we weed outdated material, we'd like to be able to have room to add newer, more just content.
Regarding accessibility, this update can include a fix for the width of the shelving and allows us the space to shift all books away from the very highest and very lowest shelves.
This necessitates removing about 40% of the shelves and the collection that sits on them. In order to do this, the college would need to (1) accept the collection adjustment measures needed to achieve this, such as weeding everything prior to 1980 regardless of importance, and (2) provide staff and materials to accommodate such a large endeavor. There is a cost, but it is unknown at this time, though it is likely to be thousands of dollars--and that would be the cost of removing shelves, adding digital resources, and the increase in interlibrary loans. The cost that doesn't have a dollar amount would also come in the loss of physical resources.
Regarding accessibility, this solution would allow us to space the shelves the correct width apart, but the reduced shelving space would mean that we would need to use the very lowest and very highest shelves, in addition to not having very much space to put new acquisitions--which would go directly against the purpose of our collection goal, which motivates us to acquire newer and better material as a matter of course.
Reducing the collection just enough in order to shift items to the shelves that do work has been floated as an idea—however, it is almost a sure thing that more shelves will continue to go bad, and shifting the collection requires quite a bit of additional work in order to keep everything organized and clearly labeled. In addition, there would be constant shifting and reduction as more and more shelves break down, and the aesthetics of having several shelves marked unusable while the remainder of the shelves are stuffed to the gills is quite unattractive. While there may not be a payment “cost” to this option, there would be a significant staff cost in the time and work invested from librarians and circulation employees.
Regarding accessibility, this solution would not allow us to space the shelves the correct width apart, and we would need absolutely have to use the very lowest and very highest shelves (in addition to not having very much space to put new acquisitions).
Weeding according to our current goals does not do anything for Option 1. For Option 2, weeding according to our current goals may get us close to 40% of the collection, but keep in mind that accessibility and new acquisitions are also part of our goals, neither of which would be facilitated by squeezing a reduced collection onto 60% of the available shelves. Our current weeding project might make Option 3 more viable as a short-term solution, but Option 3 is the least desired of the choices, since it does nothing to solve our accessibility issues.
Thus, while we are actively seeking the right solution, until we know what that is, the Collection Update for Currency Project will proceed independently of any shelving space issues.
Vogel Library, Wartburg College | 100 Wartburg Blvd, Waverly, IA, 50677 | Phone: 319-352-8500 | Email: asklibrarian@wartburg.edu