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
-
-
Letter: Consumer-driven economy will pay off debt
To save America some money — by acclimation of course — let’s not have a presidential election in 2012. We already have a good president who will do his best to kill all Republican bills (DOA) and, consequently, create more good-paying jobs in the $30 per hour range.
-
Letter: Gingrich cashes in on political amnesia
Rasmussen says that Romney has flattened nationally. Why?
Two reasons seem to tell the tale. Gingrich has shown that he will fight, and Romney is a Mormon, believed to be a “cult” by a majority of evangelicals. -
Letter: Hiring Winkler not wise spending
As a taxpayer I want to know that my taxes are being spent wisely. Hiring Greg Winkler at a salary of $126,000 is not wise spending.
-
Letter: Bill of Rights being nullified by new law
President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act on New Year’s Eve. I doubt many Americans noticed its implications because they do not yet comprehend the big picture. This law, coupled with the Patriot Act, is paving the way for America’s direction toward tyranny.
-
Letter: $14 trillion debt started by previous president
I’m a proud atheist who’s lucky enough to know the difference between fact and fantasy.
-
Letter: Economy putting people in the gutters
We are now getting the results of putting people in the gutters. We need to take a second look at our government and its policies. It’s not working.
-
Viewpoint: Look at Creation Museum from an educational, scientific perspective
I encourage any and all who have interest in this vitally important topic to “go to the source,” to invest the time and energy into exploring The Creation Museum for themselves.
-
Letter: Blame the voters for our Congress
Why is insider trading legal for Congress and illegal for the rest of us? They make and enact laws for all of us, but then exempt members of Congress. Somehow this doesn’t seem to pass the smell test.
-
Letter: Smith’s firings appear vindictive
Anderson is a city of negative publicity and actions. Why else is Sears leaving? Can we stand four years of vindictive actions and negative reporting?
-
Letter: Planned devaluation of dollar is coming
I’ve submitted letters regarding the existence of a global elite for years now. I’m now submitting another one in which I hope readers will take note of.
- More Letters Headlines
-
Letter: Consumer-driven economy will pay off debt
