—
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.
