By Thomas R. Winters
Anderson resident
Anderson Public Library (APL) should be more flexible in settling damage claims against its patrons instead of rigidly applying the axiom of, “That’s our policy”!
I returned a 10-year-old book damaged by rain (left my car window down) and was informed via e-mail the next day that it was damaged and I was being fined $52.95 (what APL originally paid). I thought I could buy it for less so I immediately purchased a new and exact copy of the book to exchange for the damaged item. However, when I offered to exchange the new book for the damaged item, the director informed me that APL did not intend to replace the damaged item and I am still liable for the damages. I advised the director that I would appeal to the library board.
I appealed to the APL board for consideration and offered to settle the claim through (1) provision of the new replacement copy of the book, (2) application of substantial depreciation for the “10-year-old book” and an $18 payment, or (3) volunteer work for APL as needed. The board tabled a decision on my appeal until the following monthly meeting at which I was informed that I am still liable for $52.95.
I suggested to the board that APL provide some information about its policy when contacting patrons about damage claims in the future. Hardly anyone in the community of Anderson knows of any set policy. I wasn’t surprised to observe that most of the board members themselves don’t know the APL policy for settlement of damaged item claims. More than one asked, “What is our policy?” The way I understand the policy now is that one must pay whatever the replacement cost is for the damaged item or whatever the library originally paid for the damaged item.
Interestingly, I received a notification from APL at my home dated the same day I returned the damaged item. It stated: “Dear Library Customer … We value you as a library customer and we believe that you will understand the necessity of REPLACING (capitalization mine) damaged materials so they may be used by others”.
So … why does APL demonstrate such rigid inflexibility in allowing patrons to satisfy legitimate debt? Many of us wish to settle with APL so we may continue to enjoy the great services it provides, but why can’t we reason together? APL seems ruthless and greedy in its absolute demand for payment in full (unreasonable as it may be). Satisfaction of damage claims is much higher for institutions that are willing to apply some flexibility and exception to written policy, especially when that policy has not been effectively communicated nor understood. APL will better serve the community and promote good will in Anderson as it applies principles from Jesus’ parable of the shrewd manager (Luke 16:1-8) in which debts are settled on a case-by-case basis for much less than the original demand when justified. Managers have authority to allow exception to policy. APL managers should be encouraged to apply flexible and fair judgment in allowing compromise when presented with situations where longtime patrons have made good faith effort to settle debt.
Letters
Viewpoint: Library policy shows need for flexibility
- Letters
-
-
Viewpoint: Medical professionals instill confidence
The reason for this letter is not to inform everyone in town “all about my operation,” but far more importantly, to share my remedial experience — physically and emotionally — with gratitude and appreciation for all components of the entire Saint John’s Cancer Center team.
-
Letter: Impatient drivers ignore school bus arm
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of the people that drive on 38th Street from Columbus Avenue to Scatterfield Road every morning for running my stop arm on the school bus that I drive.
-
Letter: Public should have say on library space
As taxpayers, does the public have no say-so what happens with their tax dollars? With some proper schedule management, those existing meeting rooms can fulfill everyone’s needs.
-
Letter: Election fraud tales turn voters away
Columnist Maureen Hayden asked, “Why did 3 million Hoosiers choose not to vote?” She gave a few reasons but I can think of another one.
How about election fraud? -
Letter: Elected officials should buy insurance
I may be wrong but I thought the city and county were hurting for money, and that’s why services keep getting cut or eliminated. One thing is evident. There is no shortage of money for lawsuits.
-
Letter: Source of inequality is not economic
The truth of the collapse of a living-wage economy for working-class America is a social catastrophe and, increasingly, a severe embarrassment to free-market ideology.
-
Letter: America following road to tyranny
Global elitists behind our government have methodically been guiding our government toward the New World Order.
-
Letter: Let’s work through the problems
On May 14 I attended the county council meeting in hopes that I could understand what is happening in the legislative branch of our Madison County government. What I saw was politics at its worst and I cannot applaud either party.
-
Letter: Columnist Brown ignores truth
It’s hard to understand why The Herald Bulletin carries columns by Susan Stamper Brown, who has such a blatant disregard for truth in her conservative propaganda.
-
Letter: Taxpayers should thank the ‘few’
Are those who worry about the loss of the wheel tax concerned about the roads or about their jobs? Most of them could care less about people’s needs.
- More Letters Headlines
-
Viewpoint: Medical professionals instill confidence
