X-Envelope-to: CIRCPLUS@IDBSU.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CIRCPLUS@IDBSU.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.circplus
Date:         Fri, 25 Sep 1992 23:43:00 EST
              <CIRCPLUS@IDBSU.BITNET>
From:         "W.C. DIVENS" <N93774@PITTVMS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Apology warrented?

>Uh...OOOh...RB is wrong again...sorry Rusty.  The point is the AD SHOULD
>NOT HAVE APOLOGIZED TO THE PATRON for the library or anyone else until they
>had the facts.  The AD embarrassed the staff member unfairly and gave
>the impression to one of THOSE patrons that the staff member was not
>acting appropriately.  Why is it that office types always think the patron
>is right?

Sorry ^2...but RB is gonna stick to his guns on this one.  I have
yet to see an adversarial situation at any circ desk in any library
where there is one party that is 100% right and another that is
100% wrong.  Even if the staff member is 95% right, the administrator
can and probably should issue some form of appeasement to the patron,
even for that 5% factor.  There are often other forces coming into
play here.  Take the case where the exact same events transpire, but
in one case the aggrieved party is an itinerant borrower from some
school and in the other case, the party is the dean of the law school.
Does the dean of the law school deserve an apology?  Does the itinerant
borrower deserve an apology?  (Apology is not necessarily the appropriate
term here...)  Think both cases will be handled identically?  Think
they should?

I am often critical of administrators, but realize that their 'global'
view may give them a slightly different perspective.  In many cases, they
have to operate at the lowest common denominator...erring on the side
of appeasement rather than have an incident explode beyond all reason;
treating all the patrons as if they were the dean of the school.

Case in point...wife of an influential University trustee came in and
carried on like the queen of Sheba.  Words were exchanged, she left
all bent out of shape.  Calls the Director...director appeases the
person.  Am I angry?  Sure...but it passes, and upon reflection I am
glad that the incident is over.  My wounded ego will heal, the director
explains the situation and I am fine.  Further, the director comes
and tells me that she was indeed an SOB, and he wanted her out of his office
as much as I wanted her out of my face.  Says "you were right...I know
it and you know it...but we also know how these kinds of things go..."
No problem...for indeed I do know how they go.


Were I the administrator in question, I may have well tried to appease
the patron, get them out of the way and kill the incident.  But I would
not have called for the department head, or anyone else, to chastize
them...and certainly would not have called for a personal apology.  More
than likely, I would have approached the department head and told them
what I had done and why, reassuring them that they have my support and
that the apology (or whatever) was done solely to kill the incident.
"If the bozo comes in again and mouths off, call me immediately".

So what happens if the administrator says "Screw the patron, I'm gonna
tell them that they were wrong, dammit".  The patron then goes to a
higher level of authority, even FURTHER removed from the situation...
they write a letter to the university news...or go to the top dog
at the university.  Who needs this kind of aggravation?  Certainly
not the library.  Don't do nobody no good.

You can bet that if the incident DOES explode and gets taken higher
up, they will get an apology...and there will be fallout that may
make the staff wish they had let the incident die.  The higher up
the administrative ladder you go, the more that 'image' is an issue and
the less likely an easy appeasement is possible.


And in regards to the case in point...I have a policy of calling
IMMEDIATELY to the next higher level of authority when there is
a patron who is 'on their way up to the office'.  That way the
person DOES hear my side, if abbreviated, and is somewhat prepared.

Rusty...but on top of the situation.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU