I’m getting a lot of mails from people asking to clarify the main issues about the Friends of Manchester Central Library Campaign to save the huge cull currently going on of their wonderful reference stock, so I’ve taken time to write down the main issues…

We are concerned about the way that Central Library has decided to slash its internationally renowned non-fiction reference and lending stock (Approx 500,000 books) by between 40–60%, with no public consultation, and has responded to criticism with spin, deflection and evasive answers. We believe that they are in the process of permanently damaging this important public asset. Transparency and accountability are at the heart of our concerns.

The main points are:

• As far as we can tell, there has been no public consultation concerning the fate of book stocks whatsoever, even though the library is slashing its non-fiction reference lending stock by up to 60%. A great many Mancunians will be on the train down to London to the British Library after this.

• Throughout, the library has insisted that they are only weeding out-of-date, damaged or duplicated books. This is simply not possible when talking about such a huge percentage. Recently they have also been talking about irrelevant books – but we have no idea what they mean by that. We believe they are actually working to a percentage, made necessary by the vastly reduced shelving space allocated to non-fiction reference volumes in the architect’s plans for the new library.

• When the reduction process began, Central Library posted on the FAQ’s on its website that they were anticipating no significant book loss. Later this turned into 300,000 – a full 60% of non-fiction reference and lending stock. Once our campaign was under way this dropped overnight to 210,000 – still over 42%. We do not believe they have been operating with any coherent policy.

• The library has done its best to conflate the actual reduction with the full number of volumes in the library – approx. 1,000,000. But once special collections, such as parliamentary papers, which are exempt from the cull, and other collections such as fiction, local history and music are removed, this leaves 500,000 books for the 210,000 to come from: 42%.

• The Library continued with the process of disposal for eighteen months without any Stock Editing Policy being published. After this campaign began, this document was published – then taken down – then re-posted with changes reducing the effectiveness of the transparency clause. We believe there is a strong possibility that this document was only written in response to our questions, and that for the past eighteen months, they have been operating with no coherent Disposal Policy at all. Everything is being done on the hoof in order to fit stock into a reduced space.

• There are only five, non-specialist library staff going through a total stock of 500,000, with no special training – an impossible task for such a small number to do properly. Also, however experienced these people are, they are not the subject specialists that this kind of work needs and deserves. Claims by the library that they call in subject specialists “When required,” are specious. There is no information as to under what circumstances, or when, or how they are called in or who these people are. We believe that many valuable books have been already pulped or sold on.

• We believe that the cost to the library, and money they receive for the books they sell – is somewhere between 10 and 20p a book. This represents bad value for money, in disposing of a valuable publically owned asset.

• We want the disposal process to be paused while full consultation with users, including universities, writers, other libraries, museums, readers and the local community is carried out. Once they have compiled a proper policy, based on the desires of the people who have paid for all these books, that policy should be carried out with transparency and accountability to the people of Manchester.

If you want to help put pressure on Central Library to consult before they pulp, please like our new Facebook page.

Carol Ann Duffy, Jeanette Winterson, John Cooper Clark, Tony Warren, Willy Russell are just a few of the writers, along with a host of academics, who have signed an open letter to Manchester Library boss Neil MacInees, asking him to think again about what is being done to Central Library.

For eighteen months, the Library has been ploughing through its reference book stock, destroying, by its own admission, hundreds of thousands of books. No one serious outside the council accepts that the figures reported – perhaps as much as half a million books – is a simple process of weeding out old, damaged or duplicated stock, and yet this flimsy piece of nonsense is the only mantra the Councils seems able to utter. No fact, no figures, no catalogue – just argument and spin. Until the last few days, there wasn’t even any coherent policy made public, laying out the criteria used to sort books destined for destruction.

All the arguments can be settled amicably right now, if the library goes ahead and does what it should have done in the first place: engage in a full and proper public consultation about what it’s doing with its books; let us know how many, and if possible which books have already been destroyed; agree to publish a full list of what is going in the future. Finally, they need to get proper, trained subject specialists to take a full part in the process.

It would also help if we knew how much shelving was available for reference stock once the refurbishment is complete, just to make it clear that the process is a qualitative one, not quantitative.

That’s no more than any professional library would be expected to do – let alone one with the international standing that Manchester enjoys.

Meanwhile, just look at this letter and the list of names signing it. If this lot asked me for something, I’d be inclined to sit up and take notice. How about it, Mr MacInnes?

And an article in the Guardian about the letter here.

For the past 18 months, Manchester Central Library has been destroying its reference stock with no public consultation, no records kept of what has been destroyed, and as far as we can tell, no Disposal Policy guidelines to follow. No one has any idea of what treasures have already been lost.

After a great many requests to go public with this policy – if it even exists – the Library came up with a document online. It stayed up for a couple of days – and was then removed. Why? Accountability should be the watchword in all dealings of this kind, but this process has been kept behind closed doors. What is the library trying to hide?

Meanwhile, an article in the Manchester Evening News last week highlighted the various wonderful “rare and valuable treasures” that librarians have discovered, among them a 1946 Penguin First Edition of Emily Bronte’s Wuthering Heights. A rare treasure? – you can own it yourself for less than a quid. Here it is on Abebooks – at 64p.

If anyone wanted further proof that this process requires subject specialists and not ordinary librarians, there it is.

Manchester Central Library needs to answer a few simple questions, that any responsible library would be able to do at the drop of a hat. They need to publish that Disposals Policy properly. We need to know how many books have already been lost and what they were. Finally, and most importantly, the Library needs to provide a full catalog of what is being disposed off in the months to come.

THESE BOOKS ARE NOT OWNED BY MANCHESTER COUNCIL, OR THE LIBRARY – THEY ARE OWNED BY THE PEOPLE OF MANCHESTER. WE DESERVE TO KNOW WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THEM.

Meanwhile, for anyone interested, a copy of that short lived Disposal Policy can be found here.

And that copy of Wurthering Heights – go on, buy it. At the rate they’re going, you’ll be able to build up a lending section bigger than Manchester Central in a few months.

There is a good deal of unease – both within the library service and without – about the massive pulping of stock currently going on at Manchester Central Library. The Head of Libraries, Neil McInnes, has tried to address these concerns in his recent post http://www.twitlonger.com/show/hl9o1j but there are a number of points he needs to address before these concerns can be laid to rest.

1 – Why have they misled the public about the number of “books” being replaced?  (Please see the link at the end of this blog for more details.) Is it true that the the huge figure  – representing up to 70% of total stock, was decided upon on the heels of a massive miscalculation as to the amount of shelving necessary?

We understand very well that publishers, bookshops and libraries all need to keep track of their stock. For an organization the size of Manchester Central Library, 30k seems like a reasonable figure. 300k, on the the hand, is absolutely massive. We need to be reassured that this is part of a plan; we need to know what the plan is, how it was arrived at and why it is being carried out.

If it is the case that this is simply the result of someone trying to cover their tracks after making a mistake, that person needs to be taken to task.

2 – Why are there no subject specialists being involved?

Manchester Central Library is a treasure house of social and historical books, famous for the depth and range of its stock covering the period from the 19C to the present day – a period of enormous significance both for the North, for the country, and indeed for Europe and the world. It is of international significance. The only people qualified to assess the value of these books are subject specialists. Ordinary librarians, however experienced, simply do not have the skills to assess it properly.

What are the criteria for selection of books to be pulped? Why are such a huge number of books being pulped without proper assessment?

3 – Does this amount to a change of use for the Central library; in which case, why has there been no public consultation? And why are the destroyed books not being recorded?

In his piece on Twitter, Mr McInnes talks about how the stacks under the library that used to house the stock were rarely accessed and were generally available only to library staff. He speaks of how he wants to avoid the Library being “a Mausoleum.” and to make it a modern public space that everyone can enjoy. Of course we applaud the aim of making the library a modern resource for the general public. But does he really think of History as being simply a storehouse of dead books? History is not a mausoleum. It resounds and rings in us all; it has shaped our present and informs our future. Without documentation, we are all less than we could be.

Is it the case than an executive decision has been made, behind closed doors, to destroy these unique record of Mancunian history? At what point was this decision made? Who made it and why have we not been informed about it?

It is not believable that so many books are being pulped without an overall plan.

We have just finished celebrating the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee, and I’m certain that I am not alone in enjoying looking back to the past, seeing how much has changed, and in what ways. This, surely, is how the past should be honored. We have all seen a great deal of film footage on TV, illustrating the decades of the Queen’s reign. How dreadful it would be, and what a public outcry there would be, if this footage had been destroyed. According to Mr McInn’s criteria, it certainly would have been, since it is not generally available to the public and is very rarely accessed. Indeed, some of it may never have been accessed since it was first shot. And yet it has been preserved and presented and has given all of us a sense of who we are and where we come from. Surely it is important that the same kind of care is taken of the history of ordinary people as well as that of monarchs.

A modern library can have many roles; one of them must be as a treasure chest of the past – a place where we keep our history safe for future generation. If it fails in this duty of care, it will be failing as a library and making a dreadful mistake which cannot ever be righted. That is not modernism; it is ignorance. It is not creating resources, it is destroying them.

I urge the Central library to look into this matter. Let informed specialists go over these books and decide what needs to be kept, and what can be safely pulped. Let’s not dismiss the past so easily. Both ourselves and future generation may need it if we are to move into an informed future.

… If you’re interested in getting Manchester City Council to reveal more about what is going on at Central Library, you can read the letter circulated by concerned workers, adn find out how you can help here.