Nelson & His World

Edited on Thurs Dec 04 2008

This post has now been amended to reflect the subsequent announcements made by the Museum on Tues Dec 03, about revised plans. The orgininal post is retained at the end of this post for reference. I don't believe this edit invalidates any of the posts following it, but I know members won't be backward in coming forward if it does.

This (rather long) post contains a summary of the issues surrounding the previously planned imminent extended closure of the Caird Library at the National Maritime Museum, followed by greatly reduced service provision. The Museum has now revised its plans to avoid complete closure, but there is still no access to manuscripts for a period of 5 months, the greatly reduced service provision remains, and there are concerns for the long term future. The summary ends with a four part appeal to the Museum.

This post also summarises some of the discussion that has already taken place on this thread: http://www.nelsonandhisworld.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=258 but is posted in this new thread for greater visibility

Having engaged in some off-site consultation, I know that the statements below have the support of some others, but it would be useful if members of this forum could indicate whether they support all or part of this:

National Maritime Museum
Caird Library Reduced Service Provision

What is happening
The Caird Library is closing all direct public access to its manuscripts collection on 5 January 2009 for five months (re-opening 1 June 2009) while the collection is moved to off-site storage to allow building work on the Sammy Ofer wing. The Caird Library reading room will be open two days per week, for a total of 13 hours per week for consultation of collections held in the reading room, namely printed books, journals and microfilm holdings. Rare books will also available for consultation if ordered in advance

After 1 June 2009, the library will re-open with reduced opening hours of approximately 20 hours per week from 2009 to 2012. This provides public access to the library and archives for approximately half the minimum of 40 hours per week promised and promoted in the Museum’s own current published Library Access policy. The service will be further limited by fewer document retrievals per day because of the retrieval from off-site storage.

There is concern that the reduced opening hours may become permanent as no commitment has yet been made to increase the opening hours when the new research centre opens in the Sammy Ofer wing in 2012.

Notice, Consultation and Planning

In August an announcement was made in the Caird Library blog of a two or three month closure planned for spring 2009, but this went largely unnoticed by researchers. However, only two months’ notice was been given of an earlier and greatly extended closure from December. After much protest from users, the revised arrangements above were announced on 3 December. Researchers querying the online catalogues for the Archive or the Library on the website are given no warning of the drastic cuts in service unless they also visit the NMM or Library home pages.

No consultation took place about the original plans for closure or the sudden earlier and extended closure now replaced by the arrangements above. No meaningful consultation has taken place about the reduced service provision upon re-opening. As yet the Museum has not announced details of the service to be provided such as the number of documents that may be ordered or the number of retrievals per day.

None of the £35 million project budget for the Sammy Ofer wing has been allocated to the strategic priority of maintaining the core Archive and Library service provision to researchers during the development.

The Impact on Researchers

Not only will the extended closure of access to the manuscripts collection bring much research to a standstill, but the short notice will have left many who are wholly dependent on access to the library and archives unable to take steps to mitigate this in any way. For many authors, historians, students and researchers, this is likely to materially affect the way they earn their living or continue their studies.

The reduced service provision from 2009 onwards will seriously hamper all users. With the reduction in service, it is difficult to see how the access to the Archive and Library collections over the next three years can reach even half the previous level.

The impact from 2012 onwards remains unknown, but there seems to be increasing emphasis on the Museum’s interpretation of its collections and on educational access for children, rather than on meeting the needs of researchers.

The Wider Issues
Both the extended closure closure of access to the manuscripts collection and the future reduced service are incompatible with the National Maritime Museum’s strategic priority of maintaining a core public offer providing opportunity for research to visitors during the development. This strategic priority is part of the 2008-11 funding agreement with the Government.

Of equal concern, for some time the Museum has already been falling behind its objective of increasing access to its archives.

While other publicly funded bodies have been increasing opening hours, the Museum has failed even to adhere to its own published policy of opening minimum of 40 hours per week. Even before the imminent closure and future reduction in hours, the Caird Library has been open only 32 hours per week. This failure to deliver an agreed level of basic provision does not instil confidence in the ability to deliver an appropriate level of services to researchers in the future.

Somehow, the revised building schedule for the Sammy Ofer wing has resulted both in the short notice of closure of access to the manuscripts collection, and the much more extended period of closure. The reasons quoted by the Museum for the revised schedule are “to make the overall building works period shorter”, “to achieve more with the funds in this period of global financial downturn”, “the Olympics” and “the wishes of the major donor to the project”. The revised schedule has a major detrimental effect on the Museum’s core service to researchers, and yet none of the reasons are connected with the Museum’s core objectives. There are major public accountability issues that arise from a publicly funded body being diverted from its core objectives by the Olympics and by the wishes of a private individual who has donated money.

The National Maritime Museum appear to be undertaking a major redevelopment of the area of the building in which the library and archives are located, without any prior concept of what levels of service will be available in future, or without consulting on the purpose the library improvements will serve for core users.

The Way Forward
The National Maritime Museum is the publicly funded keeper of a unique and important national library and archive, which includes public records. We appeal to the Museum to take into account the needs of its many historians, teachers, students, writers and researchers by reconsidering its plans for service provision over the next four years and beyond. A significant delay to the start date of the project to allow for the proper planning of service provision is highly desirable, but may no longer be practical. But we appeal to the Museum to take steps to mitigate its impact on researchers. In particular we ask the Museum:

1. To reconsider the plans for the temporary closure of access to manuscripts and to consider a shorter closure and/or partial closures. For example, to consider phasing the removal of the manuscripts collection to the off-site location whilst keeping access open to the remainder of the manuscripts and clearly publicising these phased changes to service in advance to minimise disruption for users.

2. To reconsider the service provision from 2009 to 2012 to allow researchers to work more effectively. On re-opening in 2009, the number of document retrievals per day will be reduced from an already low grade provision, because documents have to be retrieved from off site. To mitigate the impact of this, the number of days or hours of opening could be increased, rather than reduced. Arrangements for the method and number of documents that can be ordered could be finalised now in a way that provides for effective working by users.

3. To commit now to providing greater access to the archives after the opening of the new Research centre in 2012, and in particular to commit to extending opening hours, and to making progress on the published objective of digitising the Manuscripts collection.

4. To engage now in a meaningful public consultation with both users and potential users about service provision for researchers for the next four years and beyond.


Additional Background Information
The Caird Library Blog
Announcements and comments by the public:
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/library/2008/11/up ... losur.html
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/library/2008/10/te ... _dece.html
Main Index Page:
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/library/

‘Nelson and His World’ Internet Forum
Discussion by library users:
http://www.nelsonandhisworld.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=258

National Maritime Museum
Library and Manuscripts Access Policy:
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/upload/pdf/Library ... Policy.pdf
Archive and Library Copying Policy:
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/upload/doc/Archive ... r_2008.DOC
National Maritime Museum Funding Agreement 2008-11:
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/upload/pdf/Funding ... -%2711.pdf
Trustee Board Minutes (Minutes of the last three meetings have been withheld from publication):
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/about/the-organiza ... es/minutes
Annual Report and Accounts:
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/upload/pdf/HC-801-Nat-Maritime.pdf
Caird Library information:
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/researchers/library/
Sammy Ofer Wing information:
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/about/sammy-ofer-wing/

End of amended post.


If it is of any help to anyone, with thanks to Tycho, the summary above is now available for download as a Word document or PDF:

Word: http://www.nelsonandhisworld.co.uk/file ... vision.doc
PDF: http://www.nelsonandhisworld.co.uk/file ... vision.pdf

Feel free to use it whole or in part for any purpose, edited to reflect your own views

--------------------------------------------------


Original Post follows for reference:

This (rather long) post contains a summary of the issues surrounding the imminent extended closure of the Caird Library at the National Maritime Museum, followed by greatly reduced service provision. The summary ends with a four part appeal to the Museum.

This post also summarises some of the discussion that has already taken place on this thread: http://www.nelsonandhisworld.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=258 but is posted in this new thread for greater visibility

Having engaged in some off-site consultation, I know that the statements below have the support of some others, but it would be useful if members of this forum could indicate whether they support all or part of this:

National Maritime Museum Caird Library closure and future service provision

What is happening
The Caird Library is closing completely to researchers on 20 December 2008 for approximately six months (re-opening late spring or early summer 2009) while the collection is moved to off-site storage to allow building work on the Sammy Ofer wing.

After the closure, the library will re-open with reduced opening hours of approximately 20 hours per week from 2009 to 2012. This provides public access to the library and archives for approximately half the minimum of 40 hours per week promised and promoted in the Museum’s own current published Library Access policy. The service will be further limited by fewer document retrievals per day because of the retrieval from off-site storage.

There is concern that the reduced opening hours may become permanent as no commitment has yet been made to increase the opening hours when the new research centre opens in the Sammy Ofer wing in 2012.

Notice, Consultation and Planning
In August an announcement was made in the Caird Library blog of a two or three month closure planned for spring 2009, but this went largely unnoticed by researchers. However, only two months’ notice has been given of the now revised earlier and greatly extended closure from December. Researchers querying the online catalogues for the Archive or the Library on the website are given no warning of the closure unless they also visit the NMM or Library home pages.

Neither a firm date for re-opening, nor a latest guaranteed date for re-opening has yet been announced.

No consultation at all has taken place about the original plans for closure or the sudden earlier and extended closure. No meaningful consultation has taken place about the reduced service provision upon re-opening. As yet the Museum has not announced details of the service to be provided such as the number of documents that may be ordered or the number of retrievals per day.

None of the £35 million project budget for the Sammy Ofer wing has been allocated to the strategic priority of maintaining the core Archive and Library service provision to researchers during the development.

The Impact on Researchers
Not only will the extended closure bring much research to a standstill, but the short notice will have left many who are wholly dependent on access to the library and archives unable to take steps to mitigate this in any way. For many authors, historians, students and researchers, this is likely to materially affect the way they earn their living or continue their studies.

The reduced service provision from 2009 onwards will seriously hamper all users. With the extended closure and subsequent reduced service, it is difficult to see how the access to the Archive and Library collections over the next three years can reach even half the previous level.

The impact from 2012 onwards remains unknown, but there seems to be increasing emphasis on the Museum’s interpretation of its collections and on educational access for children, rather than on meeting the needs of researchers.

The Wider Issues
Both the extended closure and the future reduced service are incompatible with the National Maritime Museum’s strategic priority of maintaining a core public offer providing opportunity for research to visitors during the development. This strategic priority is part of the 2008-11 funding agreement with the Government.

The closure and subsequent reduced service are also incompatible with the Museum’s duty to provide public access to the public records in its collection.

Of equal concern, for some time the Museum has already been falling behind its objective of increasing access to its archives.

While other publicly funded bodies have been increasing opening hours, the Museum has failed even to adhere to its own published policy of opening minimum of 40 hours per week. Even before the imminent closure and future reduction in hours, the Caird Library has been open only 32 hours per week. This failure to deliver an agreed level of basic provision does not instil confidence in the ability to deliver an appropriate level of services to researchers in the future.

Before the closure and subsequent reduced service, users have reported that it has been more difficult to carry out research in the Caird Library than in other comparable archives such as the National Archives, the British Library or the Royal Naval Museum. The reason is the combination of the limited opening hours and the difficulty of copying from the Archive and Library collections. The latter arises from the Museum failing to follow its own published policy on copying, in that readers are prevented from using their own cameras to photograph manuscripts, even when the manuscripts clearly fall into the categories where photography is allowed. Contrary to the published policy, enquirers have been consistently informed that these manuscripts and books must instead be copied by the Museum at a price of £50 per page. This set price is applicable for both commercial and personal use.

Somehow, the revised building schedule for the Sammy Ofer wing has resulted both in the short notice of the Caird Library closure, and the much more extended period of closure. The reasons quoted by the Museum for the revised schedule are “to make the overall building works period shorter”, “to achieve more with the funds in this period of global financial downturn”, “the Olympics” and “the wishes of the major donor to the project”. The revised schedule has a major detrimental effect on the Museum’s core service to researchers, and yet none of the reasons are connected with the Museum’s core objectives. There are major public accountability issues that arise from a publicly funded body being diverted from its core objectives by the Olympics and by the wishes of a private individual who has donated money.

The National Maritime Museum appear to be undertaking a major redevelopment of the area of the building in which the library and archives are located, without any prior concept of what levels of service will be available in future, or without consulting on the purpose the library improvements will serve for core users.

The Way Forward
The National Maritime Museum is the publicly funded keeper of a unique and important national library and archive, which includes public records. We appeal to the Museum to take into account the needs of its many historians, teachers, students, writers and researchers by reconsidering its plans for service provision over the next four years and beyond. A delay to the start date of the project to allow for the proper planning of service provision is highly desirable, but may no longer be practical. But we appeal to the Museum to take steps to mitigate its impact on researchers. In particular we ask the Museum:

1. To reconsider the plans for the temporary closure and to consider a shorter closure and/or partial closures. For example, to consider phasing the removal of the archives to the off-site location whilst keeping access open to the remainder of the archives and clearly publicising these phased changes to service in advance to minimise disruption for users.

2. To reconsider the service provision from 2009 to 2012 to allow researchers to work more effectively. On re-opening in 2009, the number of document retrievals per day will be reduced from an already low grade provision, because documents have to be retrieved from off site. To mitigate the impact of this, the number of days or hours of opening could be increased, rather than reduced. Arrangements for the method and number of documents that can be ordered could be finalised now in a way that provides for effective working by users. The ease of copying from the Archive and Library collections could be easily transformed by relaxing the current restrictions on digital photography. This would not even involve a change of policy – merely implementing the policy already published.

3. To commit now to providing greater access to the archives after the opening of the new Research centre in 2012, and in particular to commit to extending opening hours, and to making progress on the published objective of digitising the Manuscripts collection.

4. To engage now in a meaningful public consultation with both users and potential users about service provision for researchers for the next four years and beyond.


Additional Background Information
The Caird Library Blog
Announcements and comments by the public:
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/library/2008/11/up ... losur.html
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/library/2008/10/te ... _dece.html
Main Index Page:
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/library/

‘Nelson and His World’ Internet Forum
Discussion by library users:
http://www.nelsonandhisworld.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=258

National Maritime Museum
Library and Manuscripts Access Policy:
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/upload/pdf/Library ... Policy.pdf
Archive and Library Copying Policy:
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/upload/doc/Archive ... r_2008.DOC
National Maritime Museum Funding Agreement 2008-11:
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/upload/pdf/Funding ... -%2711.pdf
Trustee Board Minutes (Minutes of the last three meetings have been withheld from publication):
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/about/the-organiza ... es/minutes
Annual Report and Accounts:
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/upload/pdf/HC-801-Nat-Maritime.pdf
Caird Library information:
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/researchers/library/
Sammy Ofer Wing information:
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/about/sammy-ofer-wing/

I am grateful to Tony for preparing this succinct, coherent, measured and authoritative summary of the immediate and long-term difficulties facing researchers at the Caird Library, in view of the forthcoming closure and subsequent restricted access, and also for his suggestions for finding a way forward which are constructive and, with goodwill, achievable.

I offer my full and unqualified support for all he has posted here.

I encourage all forum members to add their comments.

I should also like to endorse what Tony has written, regarding his thorough understanding of the changes to the use of the Caird library and how these would affect serious researchers. Thanks are also due for his thoughtful and constructive replies to the proposals which the NMM has put forward. One can only hope that the Museum will take serious note of what has been said.

I absolutely endorse every word of the points that Tony has kindly compiled from the many comments raised on this forum and elsewhere.

I would be fully prepared to add my support to any collective effort to encourage the NMM to consult, listen and act on the growing number of concerns expressed by users.

The official reponse to the queries I posted on the NMM blog consisted of:

1. Answering questions that I hadn't asked, on issues irrelevant to the decision making, and not related to the current closure and reduction in opening times.

2. Not answering questions that I had specifically requested clarification on.

My next biggest concern is that the NMM appear to be moving forward with the development without:

1. Any concrete plans for re-opening dates or the level of service that the new facilities will eventually provide.

2. Setting out a clear purpose for the development, by stating what the improvements and benefits will actually be for users.

I would ask the fundamental question: How can you plan and implement a major project of this type without these key milestones in place, and without the essential details of service provision, and the related benefits fully mapped out and confirmed?

In addition, everything regarding this development seems to hinge on having an iconic facility ready in time for a high profile launch to mark the opening of the 2012 Olympics - and the brownie points associated with it.

It's impossible to deny the fact that the core purpose of the Caird Library and archives has been compromised, and that the service will become much worse - with no guarantee that it will eventually improve again.

The Caird Library will re-open to triumphant fanfares and a flurry of glowing press releases, fulsomely promoting the magnificent new facility and the legacy it will provide for future generations (to dip into and walk out of.)

Meanwhile, library and archive users will have suffered four years of ad-hoc closures, reduced openings, limited access, poor service and unaffordable prices for copies of public documents.

I simply do not believe that the still mysterious 'regular users' who were supposedly consulted in the development of this project voiced their opinion in favour of:

Four years of ad-hoc closures, reduced openings, limited access, poor service, unaffordable prices for copies of public documents.

And for what? I'd still like to know?

If I could vote with my feet, I would, but the sad thing is that there is nowhere else in the world to go to study the relevant documents and manuscripts needed for my upcoming work.

The management and Trustees need to take a big step back and re-evaluate the desperate situation they have created for library users, by decisions taken in isolation and without due regard, as a publicly funded body, for the people they represent and serve.

I heartily endorse all that is said here, and add my thanks to Tony for his excellent analysis and clarification of the issue, and positive, sensible suggestions for mitigation of the disruption for serious naval historians and researchers.

It has been well said that we are not able to use the consumers' ultimate weapon of withdrawing our custom. For much of the material there is no other resource or alternative.

At the very least the Museum should:
1) increase access hours - or give a very good reason indeed why it cannot;
2) allow "self-service" digital photography for all documents, perhaps asking NA Kew for advice if they feel they need it.

For my own situation I will have to, if I can, bring forward my planned core evidence research at NMM by two months, moving another (funded) research project back. In the nature of things this is not catastrophic, but I know that I will not be able to undertake all the research I need to do at NMM before the closure later this month. As I suspect that the full closure will drag on well into the summer vacation, when teaching at Oxford preclude my research at London, I will not be able to undertake the full amount of research necessary for that project before I have to publish, which is scheduled for June.

As a consultant, this means I may feel honour-bound to reduce my fee to my client for this project, and also to my client for the project I now need to move back by several months.

My recent study day at the Museum was well-organised by dedicated staff who displayed great knowledge and interest in their specialist subjects, and who made us all feel welcome and valued. My students - many of whom have not visited Greenwich for many years - were all delighted and we gained a lot in respect of the knowledge we wished to acquire. The redesigned interiors were attractive - and I didn't even mind the children (indulgent grandfather talking).

However, the nub of the matter is that the archives at Greenwich are now being removed from us for no good reason (proper planning could have allayed all of the problems now thrown up) for an indeterminate period (I would bet that we will not have a return to normality until after October 2012 at the earliest, if ever). Handing out free membership of the RGS Library is patronising and not helpful.

I wonder if this is all part of a hidden agenda to further inhibit access to the archives permanently. I am sure that area of the Museum's activities does not produce a profit.

I suggest that Tony's excellent set of suggestions should be sent as a petition to the whole Board of the NMM, copied to the Department for Meejah, Arts and Sport or whatever its names are this week. We might need to set up a virtual signing facility, as the Government has for petitions to Downing Street.

In the meantime, I will send the URL for this thread to one or two people in the Naval Dockyards Society, the BNRA, the Nelson Society and the SNR.

Justin

Justin Reay FSA
Tutor in Naval History and Maritime Art, University of Oxford International Programmes
Consultant in Naval and Maritime History

Good news - Splice the Mainbrace!

I dunno, leave the room for a moment and the whole world changes!
After I posted my signal this evening and left to chastise an unruly student, I had an email from Dr David Davies, part of which is appended for your delectation:

"Have you seen [the NMM} blog this lunchtime:
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/library/2008/12/up ... rovis.html
"I have informed the NRS and SNR, so could you pass on the good news to BNRA?"

Extended opening instead of closure, digital photography allowed. Whatever next?

Justin
wishing he could indulge in a sippers but Bodleian rules don't allow for it

Hang on - Open for 5 extra days before all access to manuscripts is closed for 5 months (open 2 days per week for printed books, journals and microfilm holdings only), then opening still for only 20 hours per week June 2009 until 2012, then a further closure to move everything back, and still no commitment to opening hours from 2012 onwards.

We need access to manuscripts before we can photograph them!

Digital photography and digital scanning (with a sensible price list) are a huge step forward, which is fantastic news.

The rest of it still doesn't look any better to me this morning, and leaves a long list of questions unanswered.

Here is my message to the Museum:

It is good to see that the Museum has implemented its published policy on copying from the Archive and Library collection. That is most welcome, and is a huge step forward, thank you.

It is also good that the Museum belatedly recognises that it has an obligation as a Place of Deposit for Public Records. However, I am not qualified to comment on whether the legal obligation is met by opening for thirteen hours per week as opposed to the minimum of 40 hours per week promised in the Museum’s published Library Access policy.

It is very disappointing that, despite the numerous requests made to the Museum, there will still be no access to the Manuscripts collection for 5 months, and that from June 2009 to 2012 there will be no increase in opening hours from the 20 hours per week previously announced – half the minimum of 40 hours per week promised in the Museum’s published Library Access policy.

The attitude of the Museum’s management is amply demonstrated by the fact that already for months (or is it years?) the Library has opened for only 32 hours per week – in direct breach of its own policy.

Previously we were told that the Library had to close completely because the entire collection was being moved to off-site storage. Now we are told that the Library can open two days per week for access to the part of the collection that is held in the Reading room and is not being moved. What are we to believe? If the Library can open for two days per week for limited access to part of the collection, then why cannot it open for 5 days per week?

The library’s operating budget is funded by the taxpayer, and the funding agreement with the Government sets a strategic priority of maintaining the core services during the coming development projects. The Museum therefore should keep the Library open for the full 40 hours per week promised in its access policy. The reason for the previous planned closure, and now for the revised limited service was made clear in previous announcements. It is because library staff, paid out of the normal operating budget, are being used to move the collection off-site. This move is part of the development project for the Sammy Ofer Wing, and should be funded out of that project’s budget. The normal operating budget should be reserved for providing the fullest service possible.

It has also been announced previously that the Olympics and the wishes of a private donor have been among the reasons for the change to the schedule that has brought forward and extended the time needed for the move. The change to the schedule is detrimental to the core services offered to users. The Museum has sacrificed maritime and naval history to the Olympics, and perhaps worse, has followed the wishes of a private individual who has donated money - to the detriment of the Museum’s core public service funded by the taxpayer.

How much do I need to pay to get the decision reversed?

We are told that “direct research access of the manuscripts collections will not be possible during this time because they will be packed up and in transit to offsite storage”. Exactly how gullible do you think we are? Do we believe the entire collection will be in transit for five months? Of course it won’t. Most of it will be in one place or the other for most of the time. Let me make a suggestion. Instead of packing up the entire collection, pack up, move and unpack one fifth of it in the first month. During that time, keep access open to the other four fifths. Next month, do the same to the next fifth, but make access available again to the first fifth, and so on. Of course it won’t be that simple, there will be complications, so please can you put some thought into overcoming them?

We are also now told that there will be a “further closure period when we move the collections back onsite”. How long will that be? Can expect we another five months?

What is the explanation for the reduction in opening hours from 2009 to 2012? The service will be further limited by fewer document retrievals per day because of the retrieval from off-site storage, but there is no excuse for reducing opening hours at the same time. During that period, why are you not implementing your published policy of a minimum of 40 hours per week? Please will you reconsider?

We are very anxious to hear details of the service to be provided such as the number of documents that may be ordered or the number of retrievals per day.

Why have you not committed to increasing the opening hours when the new Research centre opens in 2012? Are you not willing to commit to implementing your published policy of a minimum of 40 hours per week?

When will the Museum implement its published objective of maximising access to its archives?

Will you commit now to engage in a meaningful public consultation with both users and potential users about service provision for researchers for the next four years and beyond?

Tony's latest signal is, as we might expect, a useful exposition of the current situation couched in clear language. I wonder what, if any, the Museum's response will be.

I have suggested elsewhere that the various bodies with an interest in this issue - naval and maritime history research groups, academics, individual historians, and all repositories of relevant material such as NMM, NA Kew, Admiralty Library etc - might hold a conference to discuss the way forward from here, as a matter of some urgency. Although we hold extensive collections of naval documents, the Bodleian would not be able to take part in that I think, as we have our own very similar problem on the near horizon, which is already creating a similar degree of adverse reaction. The Bodleian management have taken a rather less proscriptive line with this issue (I would say that wouldn't I?) but perhaps we could also learn from the recent unpleasantness at Greenwich in terms of consultation and problem solving.

I would be happy to be part of organising such a conference on a personal basis, perhaps with the assistance of the Naval and Maritime Libraries and Archives Group to whom I will put this concept if you feel it has legs.

Justin
feeling yesterday's announcement is a bit Curate's egg-ish - parts of it are excellent

I entirely support Tony's suggestions and Justin's petition proposal. I hope the concerns many of us have directed to the NMM will at least be read. Please let us know what further action we can take either collectively or as individuals, non-scholars, even non-citizens (UK).

Gretchen

Don’t get me wrong – some of the announcements were excellent. “Fantastic news” were the words I used for the moves on digital scanning and digital photography. No doubt too, opening the reading room two days per week does benefit somebody, but without access to the manuscripts collection is it really much of a step forward?

I have little doubt that much of the announcement was driven by a threat of legal action to enforce the Museum’s obligations as a Place of Deposit for Public Records.

When I first posted comments on the Caird Library blog at the end of October, it was as a result of the shock of discovering that the research project I had planned for early 2009 was in tatters, that somehow I had missed any hint of an impending closure, and I was seeking clarification of the future plans. I then became increasingly alarmed, and subsequently increasingly angry at the evasion, bungled decision making, failures of communication and dubious practices that emerged.

Until a month ago I was a staunch supporter of what I believed to be the National Maritime Museum’s objectives. I have a deep personal interest in some important items on loan to the Museum. It is ironic that my own research project, which has some connection with those items, is so badly impacted by the Museum’s decisions.

I now find it very sinister indeed that the Museum fails to commit to the future opening hours of the Caird Library. I also find it sinister that they have specifically announced reduced opening hours all the way through to 2012, without offering any justification for those hours. Likewise, I find it sinister that the Museum has already previously retreated from a commitment made on opening hours as far back as 2002 which is still current.

It is significant that the Museum’s management has made the point that they are moving from a cash-rich period into a cash-strapped period. It is also significant that the number of documents delivered to researchers in the Caird Library is not one of the measured key performance indicators. Neither is any other specific measurement of the service provided to Library users. Conversely, the number of children visiting the museum is a key performance indicator, as is the number of overseas visitors, and the number of visitors to the website. If budgets have to be cut, it is not hard to figure out where that might happen.

Justin, your suggestion of a conference is excellent, as is your offer to get involved. I'm sure the 'concept has legs', although I personally have none of the qualifications, experience or connections to take me into that sort of arena, other than as a fearful user.

BTW, as a member of the University, can I still get a reader’s ticket to the Bodleian? If so, would you like me to come down and join in the user consultation there?

Thanks also to all those that have contributed here.

Tony, all well said. "Sinister" is indeed the correct term here, and the fact that one of the founding purposes of the Museum and Library does not feature in current strategic performance measurements is alarming, and commercially short-sighted. Who knows what will be in fashion ten years from now? And where funding opportunities might arise?

What we do know is that the collections must be maintained and must be accessible. A proper strategy dealing with both would have spin-off benefits in use of other services at greenwich, and probably in winning external financial support, if the reputation of the provider deserves it, about which there must be growing doubts.

I would be happy to put a draft concept forward for a conference - perhaps we might combine it with research workshops as a sweetener to encourage a wide involvement, and enable NMM to feel comfortable about involvement, even hosting, as it would be pointless without their direct presence. Although I have a deal of experience at organising conferences, this demands more expertise and time (and seedcorn funding) than I can muster, so we need to table the idea widely, create a working party, define our objectives and then plan detail. May I suggest we start a new thread for this, if oothers feel it would be worthwhile?

As to the Bodleian, as an Alumnus you are entitled to a Reader's card free of charge (assuming you took your degree ) - see www.ouls.ox.ac.uk/services/admissions for details and form. Non Oxonians are also entitled, for a small fee, to apply too, as bona fide scholars in 'the whole community of the learned'. That gives access to our 8 million volumes, including some access to our naval collections, but most of those are manuscript and access to those are restricted, as well as now offering certain other problems.

We have not yet had proper consultation with Readers and frankly I think it is unlikely that we will. Decisions about access to our 7 million Bookstack volumes (that is, not on open shelves), particularly our manuscript collections, must be taken very soon, for good reasons.

The New Bodleian is a dangerous buidling and must be reconstructed but the replacement repository at Oxford has been delayed by final denial of our planning application, and the lack of any Plan B, doh! The probable 'solution' being mooted is to place our special collections including MSS in the Radcliffe Science Library next year (a very short period of non-access, mercifully), whence they cannot be called up to read in Duke Humfrey's as currently. This means textual comparison will be very difficult. Space is at a premium at the RSL and many Readers are getting very upset. Any voice not toeing the party line is branded as being obstructive, particularly within the organisation, where many of my colleagues are beginning to feel the icy chill.

Sound familiar? I hope not, but it is beginning to go in the same direction.

All this, of course, is my personal opinion and in no way reflects the Bodleian's official views. And to be honest, I cannot blame the current top management for the situation, which they inherited; but they are responsible for how it is dealt with, proper, effective and meaningful dialogue with our 'consumers' in particular, and a broadly-based problem solving consultation, neither of which are in the offing.

Best
Justin
from a very quiet Bodleian as Christmas yawns

Although it's difficult to decypher the true meaning of the NMM Trustee's minutes (there are so many Freedom of Information deletions), those that are downloadable from the NMM website here:

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/about/the-organiza ... es/minutes

appear to confirm the sinister overtones that are becoming increasingly apparent to everyone. They also shed light on the possible cause.

From the 21st February 2008 minutes:



The Business Plan requested from the Director by the Trustees in February would/should have been presented at the November Board meeting just gone. But the last three sets of minutes (May, Sept, Nov 2008) are for some reason missing from the website.

Should this business plan (and the missing minutes) now be a matter of public interest?

And absolutely yes, the implementation of the proper photography/copying policy at last is marvellous news!

I would like to add my voice to this thread and support the excellent comments already made here, and especially the valuable contributions made by Tony. I still find it difficult to comprehend what is going on with the NMM. I have a Caird Library annual reader's tickets that expires in February 2009. It therefore puzzles me why those holding such tickets were not consulted. I am not a 'regular' library user, because I live outside London, and so trips are planned with precision in order to make best use of time and money. Thank you to everyone for trying to overturn what is happening.

Lesley Adkins

Deary, deary me. What an extraordinary carry-on this is. The most bizarre aspect is that apparently, the people concerned thought that they could close the archive and nobody would much mind - the opposition seems to have caught them entirely by surprise.

If the advice of a recent civil servant might be useful, then, for what it's worth, here it is.

The government departments with an interest here are the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) which will almost certainly be the sponsoring body, and also, given the impact on academic research, the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS). I would approach both as DCMS is also the responsible department for the Olympics - ho hum - and involving DIUS might help counter this a bit.

You *could* write to the ministers involved, but if you do that, the minister won't see the letters and his private secretary will send them off to a civil service bod to write an answer which the minister won't see. Much more effective (in my experience as the bod who had to answer the letters) would be for everyone to write to their MPs and ask them to raise it with the appropriate ministers in DCMS and DIUS. MPs read letters from each other!

It might also be worth sending copies of your letters to the MP whose constituency includes Greenwich.

You might also find a nice MP who'll table an early-day motion in the House for you.


This point is, I think, key:

"There are major public accountability issues that arise from a publicly funded body being diverted from its core objectives by the Olympics and by the wishes of a private individual who has donated money."

Good luck.