Eseedhouse would you say you are against the modernization of the Central Branch?
There is little doubt that Victoria deserves a new Central Library. The current one is poorly located, and in a building never designed for a Library and has many features that get in the way of providing good service.
As the Capital city we should have a first class Library. But Library's won't work without the people that provide the service within them.
I also disagreed strongly with the idea that librarians should be replaced with computerization. To me, librarians are more important than ever, a bridge between the new technologies and the average citizen. One term I like is "knowledge navigators"
Personally I agree with you and there is no question of "replacing" books with computers. Books are still much more portable and robust, and much easier to read. But Libraries have always been about information (and that includes entertainment) than books per se. Books are currently the most practical physical carrier of that information and entertainment in several ways.
The Central Library should be the center for literacy for the region. Is that really to much to ask?
I agree, of course. But a new Central Library should be built in the context of the needs of all the users in the Capital area, not just as a monument of some kind.
Regarding the Cupe List, may I ask if when you distribute the list, you have a note somewhere explaining to members that you have not fully researched all candidates, a disclaimer as it were? If an organization starts endorsing particular candidates, I think it is fair to assume that organization has looked at all of them.
As a private individual I may vote for anyone I like in my municipality for any reason I like. That's democracy. As an independant local of CUPE, Local 410 may surely endorse candidates for whatever reason it chooses.
No one is required to follow our advice or agree with our opinions. We put them on our web page (
www.cupe410.ca) for our own reasons and for what they are worth. Anyone is free to ignore them or follow them, as they may choose. We are confident that any of the candidates we endorse will support excellent library service in the Capital region. Others may as well, but did not make themselves known to us. There are some candidates whom we feel will not support good library service, but we have chosen not to cite any of their names.
And of course it is always possible that we are mistaken about someone. If that proves to be true then I hope we can learn from our mistakes.
It would simply be impractical to vet all of the dozens of candidates for office in this area. Candidates are free to make themselves known to us, and ask for our endorsement if they want it, but I can't see any obligation on our part to vet every possible candidate for office. Our Local is run by volunteers and we have no separate paid business agent. I and the other executive do full time jobs at the Library.
Our criteria were simply that we decided we could support with our endorsement any candidate that the VLC endorsed (we are after all a member of the VLC) because we had confidence in their process. As well we may endorse other candidates whom we have reason to believe will support good library service, and in at least one case we have.