A roadmap for libraries?

Last week, the NSW government announced its upcoming 'freedoms for fully vaccinated people', with Victoria announcing their 'roadmap out of lockdown' over the weekend. Both of them have incentivised vaccination by eventually easing restrictions for people who have received two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine, and can verify this through a 'vaccination passport'.

So, what does this mean for libraries? How do these principles sit with values of freedom of access to information and privacy? Can libraries open up and still keep people safe? Let's take a look.

Re-opening libraries

In NSW and Victoria, many library buildings are closed, and offering contactless 'click and collect' services. Whilst neither of these states specifically mention libraries, NSW's roadmap mentions that once the state reaches 70% double-vaccinated (approximately 5 October), "indoor entertainment and information facilities including cinemas, theatres, music halls, museums and galleries can reopen with 1 person per 4sqm or 75% fixed seated capacity", but these will only be open to those who are fully vaccinated or have a medical exemption. (On a side note, I was curious to see the mention of music halls - perhaps they did some research on the reopening of cultural venues coming out of the Spanish Influenza outbreak of 1920.)

On the other hand, Victoria has indicated that its community facilities in metropolitan areas should stick to click and collect until 80% are fully vaccinated (approx 5 November), at which point in time they can have vaccinated people inside the library (1 person per 4 sqm, max 150). Regional Victorian community facilities are already allowed up to 20 people indoors per facility, increasing to 1 vaccinated person per 4 sqm with a max of 30 ppl on 26 October, then 150 people on 5 November.

Of course, the big condition of re-opening libraries in these cases, is that people must be fully vaccinated to use these facilities, and wear a mask indoors. Given the trouble that libraries have already encountered in the past managing those who do not want to wear masks, asking visitors for evidence of vaccination is going to be another requirement that will not be fun for frontline staff to enforce.

Here in the ACT, libraries are closed, and do not offer click and collect. The ACT Chief Minister has already indicated that they will not be implementing a 'vaccine passport' system. What this means for libraries safely reopening remains to be seen.

Finally, there are the libraries in all of the other states. At the moment, it's business as usual with physical services on offer, but it will be interesting to watch is how libraries will need to respond once the state borders re-open, and they move from living in a 'Zero COVID' environment to a 'living with the virus' environment. It won't be an easy adjustment, but that will become the reality in the new year, and libraries in these states may need to implement restrictions to reduce the risk of the spread.

Quarantining books

This has always been one of those contentious issues, ever changing. We did a lot of book quarantining last year with the first lockdowns. Then it pretty much stopped once we returned to COVID zero and now we focus more on using gloves and sanitiser on hands. However, once books come back into circulation, in a 'living with the virus' environment, there will need to be a new benchmark for managing the risk of infection through book surfaces - especially if libraries move into a hybrid system of in-person browsing and borrowing (for those fully vaccinated) and click and collect (for those not fully vaccinated).

Vaccinating library staff

This has not been mentioned in either of the roadmaps, but in the US we are already seeing instances of organisations mandating vaccination of all employees. Whilst I would hope that all librarians would have the skills to manage and identify misinformation around COVID-19 vaccines, and get the jab themselves, there are instances in the US where a large proportion of staff are refusing to get vaccinated - and indeed, we already see it happening amongst health care workers in Australia. Library organisations owe it to their workers to ensure that they have a safe workplace to go to - and that includes keeping them safe from other workers who choose to not get vaccinated. 

Privacy

This is a big one. Both the NSW and Victorian roadmaps hinge on the principle of controlling the movement and activities of those who are not vaccinated - which means constantly asking people for personal information, which might include:

• Full name
• Age
• Vaccination status
• Medical reason for not being vaccinated

There were plenty of concerns expressed around libraries gathering personal information for contact tracing purposes last year. What is proposed will be next level - it will be intrusive, confronting, and sends the message that only certain people are welcome to enter the library. A vaccination passport is effectively an ID card that everybody will be expected to carry with them and produce when requested. And whilst it may be absolutely necessary for keeping staff and other library users safer, it's not going to be sending a positive message to the community.

Access to information and services

There are already many who are opposing the establishment of a 'vaccination passport' system, saying that it will create a kind of apartheid society - and they're not entirely wrong. Whilst there are many who choose not to get vaccinated as a result of misinformation, there are also those who have medical reasons for not being vaccinated. There are fundamental principles of freedom of access to library resources that should be considered. Of course, keep your staff safe, but provide equal services to all - don't promote library access as a 'special reward' or 'freedom' to those who are fully vaccinated. A freedom for a select group of people is a restriction for everybody else. Find ways to equitably reach out and connect to all in your community - not just those who are allowed to walk in the front door.

Keeping library workers safe

I've already mentioned staff vaccination, which is an essential part of worker safety, but there's also the occupational hazards of delivering frontline services. Last year, when libraries reopened but required users to maintain social distancing and wearing masks, it was those workers on the frontline who were on the receiving end of customer abuse. Adding the above privacy concerns to the mix raises the risk to our workers, who may be expected to further police the rules of entry, and ask each and every person coming to the library to provide their evidence of vaccination. Frontline staff will be putting their physical and emotional wellbeing on the line every time they do this.

So, where to from here? My personal opinion is that libraries should only provide contactless services to their entire community until it is safe for them to reopen in-person services to their entire community. Unfortunately, it's not going to be possible to provide physical services safely for the near future - especially once we come out of lockdown, the borders reopen, and we have to 'live with the virus' at the expense of those who are not vaccinated (whether that be of their choosing or not).

The unfortunate reality, though, is that there is a stronger appetite to completely reopen than there is to stay closed. We know that there is value in libraries marketing themselves as 'essential' rather than 'nice to have' - especially when it comes to funding and budgets - and when library buildings are closed, many staff are stood down without pay. On the flipside, we currently see university libraries in Melbourne that have stayed open through lockdown, with casual frontline staff put in the unenviable choice of either taking paid shifts and risking their wellbeing, or not getting paid. The risk is that this will become the norm, where those who can work from home will continue to do so, whilst frontline staff are sent back to the frontline.

Finally, the ALIA Board have just released a statement, highlighting the importance of keeping staff safe, countering misinformation around vaccines, and ensuring that library services are open to all.

How we actually do that will be the big challenge, moving into 2022.

What do you say to taking chances?

Nineteen months ago, I took a huge risk. I resigned from my job in an organisation that I'd had my sights on for more than ten years, and was very much a dream employer in my eyes.

January 2020 was a complicated time. I'd returned to Canberra, two weeks after my father's funeral, to a smoky hellscape of a city, due to the ongoing devastation of bushfires across New South Wales. I saw a newjob opportunity that I thought I would be well-suited for, which was a sideways shift in my career, focused on publishing and communications. I put in an application, and was offered the job. In hindsight, it was a hasty decision - possibly a rash one - but it was the right one for me at the time. I needed a change, and this was a chance to focus on something adjacent to my previous career, but quite different.

I started in mid-February, and by mid-March... well, you know how the past 18 months have been. I produced a lot of work that I'm incredibly proud of, and in doing so, I built my skills as a writer, editor and creative producer. I also learnt a lot - about what it meant to be a communications and campaign manager. How strategic communications are meant to operate, and the importance of being proactive and responsive during times of crisis. I worked hard on this, and whilst with the right guidance, I was able to get a lot of this done, I continuously found myself second-guessing my skills, and my ability to get a satisfactory outcome from an advocacy campaign.

There were the most painstaking moments where I would lose sleep over whether we were getting the messaging right - or horribly wrong - and whether the right approach would make the difference between enthusiastic take-up from our stakeholders and quiet non-participation - or worse, downright hostility. This is the continuous brain space of being a communications manager, and after eighteen months, I was exhausted, mentally and physically.

In this role, I was not always the best person that I could be.

So, last month, I took a huge risk. I put in my resignation, allowing for plenty of time to have a thorough handover of the role. I don't have a new job lined up at this stage, but to be perfectly honest, I'm not keen to rush straight immediately from one job to the next. It's been five years since I had a break between jobs, and the thought of taking a month or two to refresh, reflect, regenerate, and focus a bit on my mental and physical wellbeing, is something that I'm really looking forward to.

Of course, I have doubts about whether this has been the right decision. I've enjoyed my time with my current employer - they're good people and they're doing good things. I care about the work that they do, and if I'm entirely honest, I'd say that they deserve better than what I have to offer. I'm also grateful for the opportunities that they've provided, and through them, I've added an impressive suite of achievements to my career path.

I guess I always knew that it was never going to be a 'forever job', but now it's time to move on to something that focuses more on my strengths, where I can be the best me. Whether that's as a writer, editor, content producer, or moving back in line with my previous trajectory in the area of cultural institutions, I'm excited about moving forward to a possible future where I can excel at the things that I'm good at.

On identity by blood quantum...

It was a seemingly harmless conversation with an Uber driver.

We got chatting about our lives - she was from Kenya, and after moving to Australia she had married a local, and now she has two kids who are "half-black and half-Aussie".

I cringed. I would have said something, but I didn't want to affect my Uber rating by giving her my five cents' worth about how people of colour demean themselves by referring themselves as half-this and half-that.

And it's fair enough. There was a time that I would have referred to myself as 'half-Chinese'. I wouldn't even need to mention what my other half was - it would have been assumed to be white Anglo-Saxon. That's the way that white supremacy works.

It was only when a friend told me about a conversation that they'd had with a relative, who was doing her usual 'racist aunt' schtick and talking about how awful all the Asian immigrants were. "What about Andrew?" my friend asked. "He's Asian."

"Oh, Andrew's okay, because he's only half."

I kinda wish my friend hadn't told me that story - I kinda never looked at that racist aunt the same again. But it also made me think... am I really "only half-Asian"? Which half, exactly.

Furthermore, it was through listening to Indigenous colleagues in my previous role that I started to realise exactly how offensive this kind of wording was, defining people's race by their blood quantum. It's still in Australia's living memory that Indigenous kids who were were taken away from their families on this basis, as a way of defining who was a 'real' Indigenous person, and who wasn't. And, indeed, this language still emerges from time to time to question one's status as an Indigenous person.

Needless to say, terms such as half-caste are deeply offensive, and for somebody to describe their cultural identity of being 'half'' anything just plays to water down the authenticity of one's identity.

This much feels obvious to me now, and yet it upsets me when I see people of colour continue to define themselves in this way - for example, on a recent show on national TV, when a presenter referred to herself as half-Asian.

So, white folks, please be mindful of using this kind of language, and people of colour - yes, I realise that this kind of terminology is prevalent in Asian cultures (I'm thinking terms like 'hāfu' in Japan, and similar in places like Malaysia and Singapore), but we need to transcend this kind of thinking, otherwise it'll continue to be used against us. I'm sorty of okay with being called 'mixed' or 'Eurasian' - whilst not as offensive as being called 'half', they're still not great. At the end of the day, it's probably easiest to ask how people prefer to identify - and don't do it by asking 'So... what are you?'

Anyway, here endeth the little rant.

Blogjune Days 20-30 - The party at the eye of the storm

So, I have neglected to blog these last five days. In my defence, I've had quite a busy week.

On Tuesday evening, I boarded a flight from Canberra to Adelaide for my longest work break since last Christmas. I'd been getting rather anxious about the news of the Bondi outbreak coming out of Sydney, especially with reports of early-holiday-goers racing across the border to the ACT before the restrictions kicked in. I arrived in Adelaide without incident, but if I'd opted to go a day later, I would have been turned around due to the fact that I'd recently been to Queanbeyan, which is technically in NSW despite being closer to where I live than some of the farther-flung suburbs of the ACT.

Anyway, Adelaide! The last time I'd been here, it was for WOMAD in March 2020, mixing with thousands of strangers in a music festival setting. Two weeks later, we were all in lockdown.

This time, though, it finally felt like things were getting back to normal - with the additional task of checking into every venue and shop on arrival. There were fun adventures to a craft brewery with fancy beers, an inner-city distillery with fancy gin, and the Adelaide wine centre with an extensive range of wines available to taste. We also engaged in fun adventures around town, from wandering the Botanical Gardens to visiting random museum exhibitions.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Andrew Finegan (@un_druly)

And then there was the Adelaide Cabaret Festival. I have been wanting to visit this festival for years, and I'm glad that I finally had an excuse to go! My budget only allowed for a few shows - Alan Cumming was utterly charming with the world premiere of his cabaret show - performed in a theatre will thousands in the audience - and the Sisters of Invention were an absolute delight. Other evenings were spent singing along with Trevor Jones in the piano bar.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Andrew Finegan (@un_druly)

And then there was the final night of the festival on Saturday night, at the festival bar, 'Club Cumming', where Alan entertained a crowded dance floor with DJ antics and guest entertainers (including a surprise performance from Trevor Ashley as Shirley Bassey). The drinks were flowing, the dance floor crowded and stomping, and the fun and frivolity aplenty.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Andrew Finegan (@un_druly)

I'm not a big party person, but after a few days of being re-immersed in live music, theatre, and culture, I just felt so alive again - something that I haven't really felt in over a year and a half.

Then Sunday came, and we trudged, sleep-deprived and brain-weary, back to Adelaide Airport for our return flight. At the gates, we were told that South Australia had just closed their borders to the ACT, so we'd better be sure that we weren't planning to come back any time soon.

And now, three days later, all Canberrans are instructed to wear masks in public, a substantial proportion of Australia is going into lockdown - or stay-at-home orders - and it all feels a little bit like history repeating...

Blogjune Day 19 - on problematic musicals

So, I went and saw a production of Kiss Me Kate this evening.

For those who are unacquainted, this is a 1948 musical, with songs written by Cole Porter, based around a Baltimore theatre company who is putting on a musical adaptation of The Taming of the Shrew. Relationships on stage mirror those in the show-within-a-show, some local gangsters get involved, and wackiness ensues.

This production aimed to modernise the show, with a contemporary setting, references to contemporary pop culture and politics, and a couple of gender-switched characters to both create more female roles and add some queer representation. Some of the song lyrics were also changed to modernise what were quite outdated values. And artistically, it was an excellent production - a tight band, wonderful performances and great set design.

Here's the problem though - yes, you can update the cultural references, and improve representation (though, to be fair, there was maybe one person of colour in the whole show...) but when the underlying plot is still problematic, then it's still problematic. I went with a friend who is a social worker dealing regularly in domestic violence cases, and I could tell that she was uncomfortable, and we had a good talk about it during intermission. We both agreed that there was a lack of real consent - or even agency - for the female lead. At the heart of this show, the character of Lilli/Kate is subjected to repeated physical and emotional abuse and humiliation, and her moment of agency is when she makes her choice between two awful men, returning to her ex-husband Fred with the song, 'I am ashamed that people are so simple' - substituting 'people' for 'women' in the original version!

Yes yes, I know it's Shakespeare, but the ending of Shrew will never not be creepy, and turning it a modern musical just makes it more archaic and uncomfortable. Plot and lyrics aside, the music was fantastic!

Ugh, I really just need to focus on having a good time at the theatre, and not overthink these things too much!

Blogjune Day 18 - on taking my leave

I recently caught up with another librarian here in Canberra, and in our conversation, they mentioned that over a number of years, they'd managed to accrue around six weeks of unused annual leave. The main reason for this was that, whilst there were mechanisms in place for somebody to cover the essentials in their absence, they didn't feel like they could really leave the role unattended for more than a few days in a row, because a lot of things would fall by the wayside and work would pile up.

My initial response was, 'Oh, that's really not good!' But on reflection, I also realised it's been almost two years since I took more than a handful of days of annual leave - when I was away for two and a half weeks, and half of that time was spent running around at a conference!

I think that we live in a society where we're now often under pressure to work as close to capacity as possible, and the reality is that if you decide to go and take two weeks of leave, somebody has to cover for you - on top of their own work.

With the last year that we've had, it's an important reminder that making sure that I take leave isn't just about me going on holidays (though that's also nice). It's also about managing an equilibrium across the team so that it's something that the team is used to. Covering for other people's duties while they're on leave is something that should inbuilt into everybody's regular routines, so nobody feels guilty for taking leave, and nobody should feel resentful for taking on extra duties.

But that said, at the end of the day, I also really need to improve my ability to trust others. I'm quite protective of the work that I do, and I need to be better at handing my work over to others to manage in my absence, and trust them to look after my babies, and not worry about having a pile of things to catch up on when I return. That's really on me - and I also wonder how much of my reluctance to take leave is less about work culture, and more about my inability to let go of the work for a few weeks.

I suspect it's more of the latter.

Blogjune Day 17 - marathon or sprint?

We're past that half-way point, and I've recently reached that point where I'm feeling the pressure of this commitment to a daily blog-post.

And even though, in an ideal world, I would have built the discipline to do a little each day, slow and steadily, the reality is that I simply do not work that way.

Some people are good at steadily pacing themselves and staying on track. I, on the other hand, tend to spend more time planning and preparing, and then go for a massive sprint to churn out a large amount of work in a small amount of time.

I'm not a great multi-tasker. I'd rather deep-dive into one thing for a day, and not be distracted by other stuff, and get all of the one thing done at once. Then then next day, I can focus on a whole other area of work, and so on.

If I only just do a little bit of everything at once, I find that it's so much harder to get anything finished.

There are definitely days when I think, 'Oh, I wish I'd started this thing earlier, and just done a little bit at a time,' but if I'm honest with myself, I kind of enjoy the rush of being super-focused and busy with one thing through an intensive short period of time - even if it's exacerbated by the stress of an impending deadline. To be honest, that's as exciting as my life gets at the moment! Why be a tortoise when you can be a rabbit (not that it's a race...).