Veronica SmWestminstebvsmith@w

630 The Jou

PERSPECTIVES ON...! A Further Perspective on Joint Partnerships:

A Commentary on Creating and Capitalizingon the Town/Gown Relationshipby Veronica Smith

This article discusses the benefits and challengesof the College Hill Library, a joint venture

between Front Range Community College andthe City of Westminster. It is a comparison to

the Keene Library partnership described in thearticle by Halverson and Plotas.

ith is MLS-Automation Coordinator,r Public Library, Westminster, CO, USAestminster.lib.co.usN.

rnal of Academic Librarianship, Volume 32, Number 6, pages 630–63

ight years ago, in 1999, a unique library opened in

E Colorado. College Hill Library is a joint venturebetween Front Range Community College and the City

of Westminster. What makes it unique is that while it operatesas one entity serving both public patrons and college studentsalike, it is run ‘‘behind the scenes’’ by two very differentinstitutions. The College Hill Library has many similarities tothe partnership that Kathleen Halverson and Jean Plotasdescribe in their article ‘‘Creating and Capitalizing on theTown/Gown Relationship.’’

Since its beginnings are chronicled in the article entitled‘‘Building the Beginnings of a Beautiful Partnership,’’ I willnot reiterate all of the details, but rather will look at somecomparisons between the College Hill Library and the KeeneLibrary partnership.1 It is interesting to see so many similaritiesbetween the two situations.

Many of the same pre-partnership concerns that Halversonand Plotas expressed were shared by staff of both the FrontRange Community College and the City of Westminsterlibraries. In 1995, when planning began for the joint library,city and college administrators were very excited about the ideaof a joint venture, but staff were apprehensive. As with theKeene libraries, the city and college were very different, eachwith its own cataloging methods, classification systems, libraryautomation systems, and library missions.

The Keene partnership was developed mainly to share alibrary catalog and the catalog was the largest concern in oursituation as well. Prior to the merger, the college was using theCARL automated system and the public library was using theDynix system. Each library was deeply committed to theautomation system that was already in place. Just as with theKeene partnership, an independent consultant was brought in togive a non-biased recommendation on the library automationsystem. Ultimately, it came down to simple economics. Neitherside could afford an entirely new system. It was much cheaperto expand the city’s Dynix system than it would have been toadd the city to the college’s CARL system.

THE BENEFITS

It is hard to believe that a decade has gone by since theplanning for this unique library began. Just as Halverson andPlotas mention, there are many benefits to our joint library

1

situation. The biggest advantage is that patrons have access tomaterials that would not ordinarily be available. In addition,patrons have access to a wider variety of online referencedatabases than either entity would be able to provide separately.We have found that even though the focus of our collections isdifferent, the libraries do have somewhat similar missions—toencourage lifelong learning and to be a valuable part of thecommunity.

Another advantage in our situation is the shared expertise ofstaff. There are many instances where we share knowledge andtraining with each other, such as training on our libraryautomation system. When the library first opened, the city wasusing the Dynix acquisitions system. It was not until severalyears later that the college moved to this system and it wasthe city staff who provided training and support duringthe college’s migration. Attending training sessions togetherallowed us to help each other with new methods andprocedures.

While the Keene Libraries each have their own IT staff, ourlibrary’s automation department is one unit, employed by thecity. Automation staff take care of every technological need atthe library, including the network, all of the computers, theonline reference databases, and the library automation system.Having one automation staff that understands the needs of thelibrary as a whole provides consistency in technology for bothstaff and patrons alike.

WHAT WE NEED TO WORK ON

Our library has not been without its challenges. Examining ourlibrary setup provides insight into the difficulties that we face.We have different classification systems, cataloging methods,and fiscal calendars. We also have four different Web sites,including the college, the city, the library, and the librarycatalog. In addition, library staff report to two differentdirectors, who in turn report to separate institutions.

Dual leadership has made it difficult at times to moveforward with a unified vision for the library. Interestingly, inhis article entitled ‘‘Dual use Libraries: Guidelines forSuccess’’, Ken Haycock lists ‘‘One highly motivated profes-sional librarian will be in charge and report to a singlegovernance board’’ as one of the ten criteria needed for a jointpartnership to succeed.2 While we have not had this in place inour library and have certainly managed, it is something forwhich we have often wished. Dual leadership has madecommunication, decision making, planning for the future,and a unified vision much more difficult. There is no one solelyin charge of the library who can oversee all operations. This

has posed a challenge especially when we need to makechanges in library operations or plan for the future.

Throughout the years, communication has been another oneof our biggest challenges. Halverson and Plotas note ‘‘Com-municating and working together on compromises helps tokeep our library relations healthy and the connections strong.’’At College Hill Library, we often struggle with communicationissues and with an ‘‘us and them’’ mentality. When commu-nication breaks down, relationships become strained and weare less willing to compromise. To foster better communica-tion, we hold combined staff meetings and share the minutes ofthese meetings so that those not in attendance can stayinformed. In addition, we use shared network drives as ameans to work together on projects or policies that needupdating. These methods help keep the flow of communicationopen and help to foster good working relationships between allstaff members.

CONCLUSION

In the eight years that the library has been open, our libraryusage and the services we offer have grown astronomically. Itis obvious that our library is thriving despite the obstacles weface in our partnership.

Without good communication and good working relation-ships, especially between the library directors, the partnershiptends to stall. As a result, projects and programs do not moveforward in a timely fashion. It often takes time once relation-ship issues are resolved for fences to be mended and for thingsto move forward again in a positive, creative way. When therelationship is good, we work together toward common goalsand are more willing to compromise, looking for solutionstogether to problems that arise.

Good relationships between staff members are also essentialin making the day-to-day interactions with each other gosmoothly and move projects ahead. Flexibility and willingnessto work toward common goals for the good of patrons overrideindividual or institutional biases. The benefits that our patronsreceive from our joint library outweigh any challenges that weface behind the scenes. So, while we struggle at times to find acommon vision, our ultimate goal is to maintain goodrelationships with each other and to provide quality serviceno matter whether we serve college students or city patrons.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Ken Haycock, ‘‘Dual Use Libraries: Guidelines for Success,’’Library Trends 54 (Spring 2006): 569–580.

2. Ibid., p. 488–500.

November 2006 631