Cranbury Forum | Bulletin | Info Sharing
[Click here to bookmark this page: http://cranbury.info]
▪
Cranbury School
▪
Cranbury Township
▪
Cranbury Library
▪
Cranbury.org
▪
Cranburyhistory.org
(Press Ctrl and = keys to increase font size)
Search
Register (optional)
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
[http://cranbury.info]
->
News | Events
Post a reply
Username
Subject
Message body
Emoticons
Font colour:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
White
Black
Font size:
Tiny
Small
Normal
Large
Huge
Close Tags
Options
HTML is
ON
BBCode
is
ON
Smilies are
ON
Disable HTML in this post
Disable BBCode in this post
Disable Smilies in this post
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Jump to:
Select a forum
Topics
----------------
News | Events
School | Parenting
Blogs by Cranbury Residents
Shopping | Good Deals | Price Talk
Home Sweet Home
House For Sale
Home Sales Pricing Records
Financial | Stocks | Mutual Funds
Cool Bytes & Bits
Garage Sale | ForSale Ads | Things to Trade
Tech Related (PC, Internet, HDTV, etc.)
Interesing and Fun Stuff to Share
What's Your Favorite?
Interests | Hobbies
Cranbury History
Radom Thoughts | Sports | Kitchen Sink
Amazon Deals
Local Business Info
----------------
Local Business Ads (FREE)
Support
----------------
Daily Sponsored Message & Amazon Ads
About Us | Your Privacy | Suggestion | Sponsored
Test Area (Practice your posting skills here)
Topic review
Author
Message
anon-q2q6
Posted: Sat, Jan 2 2016, 12:20 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Library's surveillance policy is discussed
Jan Murphy-8ss4 wrote:
To the previous poster: my invitation still stands. I'd be happy to discuss your concerns face to face. Instead, it appears that you prefer stalking me. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that.
If you continue to remain anonymously defaming me, don't be surprised if I initiate whatever steps I can to ascertain who you are, or to do what I can to feel safe at my place of employment.
Hi Jan,
I'm not the previous poster, but I'm not sure someone's casual observations about your work hours and habits would constitute "stalking", particularly as a public employee working in a public place. However, if you feel threatened you should protect yourself.
Regarding the previous poster's concerns, it is understandable that people would questionable whether a full time children's librarian is the best use of library resources in town the size of Cranbury where most of the kids are in school, the library is in the school and the school has its own librarian. Perhaps you would be willing to share your perspective on that topic...
Jan Murphy-8ss4
Posted: Mon, Dec 28 2015, 8:17 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Library's surveillance policy is discussed
To the previous poster: my invitation still stands. I'd be happy to discuss your concerns face to face. Instead, it appears that you prefer stalking me. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that.
If you continue to remain anonymously defaming me, don't be surprised if I initiate whatever steps I can to ascertain who you are, or to do what I can to feel safe at my place of employment.
pam-0292
Posted: Mon, Dec 28 2015, 11:06 am EST
Post subject: Re: Library's surveillance policy is discussed
Jan Murphy-0o99 wrote:
I'm physically present here, every day, in real time. I invite you to come in and speak with me personally and I will happily explain to you why I think Cranbury needs a new library. But knock off the crap on this forum.
No real time for librarians Mullen, Dera or Murphy. Director Mullen sees fit to schedule three certified librarians to all work at the same time! It would benefit the patrons and support staff to have one certified librarian present for all hours the library is open. But that would inconvenience Mullen, Dera & Murphy who put in time to suit their personal preferences.
From a previous post on this site:
Director Mullen salary $77,500; with full benefits
Youth Librarian & Community Outreach Coordinator Murphy salary $57,000; with full benefits
Part Time Tech & Teen Librarian Dera; salary $39,000 for 20 hours per week; and paid time off.
Since you mention it you do not work real time. You are frequently absent and often on personal phone calls.
anon-4610
Posted: Fri, Dec 18 2015, 5:23 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Library's surveillance policy is discussed
anon-6696 wrote:
I don't understand why the new library building supporters have always been so strongly opposed to any referendums. They have been proposed for years. If they have raised money from as many Cranbury households as they have said, that should represent a strong majority of all Cranbury voters.
Perhaps they are secretly aware that most of their donors did so out of a sense of polite neighborly obligation and not necessarily out of a desire to build a new book barn. Sadly, I hear that some of the most ardent fundraisers have themselves made meager financial commitments to the cause. Honestly, I'm getting weary of the library turning every Cranbury event, from Cranbury Day to the Lion's Club Pancake Breakfast, into a fund raiser for their Book Barn. When are they going to get back to the business of being a great community library for today's residents?
anon-6696
Posted: Wed, Dec 16 2015, 4:49 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Library's surveillance policy is discussed
I don't understand why the new library building supporters have always been so strongly opposed to any referendums. They have been proposed for years. If they have raised money from as many Cranbury households as they have said, that should represent a strong majority of all Cranbury voters.
anon-476s
Posted: Wed, Dec 16 2015, 2:22 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Library's surveillance policy is discussed
anon-ppq2 wrote:
RE. sharing with Monroe and Plainsboro. As of right now, we can use Plainsboro and Monroe libraries. If you mean, eliminate our library, that would take a town-wide vote. I guess a referendum.
The question was what if the location was not available. If the school kicked out the library it does not mean an automatic new library building.
If there are no state laws and I don't know there are given a number of libraries have sadly closed then likely the governing body would need to decide what to do. Whether that means referendum, regular vote, etc...
In truth, I'd like a referendum to see where people stand on building and supporting a new library. I am not sure I know that answer today.
anon-ppq2
Posted: Wed, Dec 16 2015, 1:51 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Library's surveillance policy is discussed
RE. sharing with Monroe and Plainsboro. As of right now, we can use Plainsboro and Monroe libraries. If you mean, eliminate our library, that would take a town-wide vote. I guess a referendum.
anon-45qn
Posted: Wed, Dec 16 2015, 11:05 am EST
Post subject: Re: Library's surveillance policy is discussed
I would think then there would be a group of people swayed to build and another group push to share with Monroe or Plainsboro. For years, Monroe had no library and shared with Cranbury.
anon-ppq2
Posted: Wed, Dec 16 2015, 8:52 am EST
Post subject: Re: Library's surveillance policy is discussed
Good points:
"All the people I know who do not want to build a new library are still pro-library, they just don't want a new building."
"Yes, anti-new library. Not anti-library. I too don't know anyone anti-library."
A question: If the present location is no longer available for whatever reason (school needs the space, the school no longer wishes to be a landlord), then what would be a solution for a new home for the public library?
anon-s6p5
Posted: Tue, Dec 15 2015, 3:32 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Library's surveillance policy is discussed
Yes, anti-new library. Not anti-library. I too don't know anyone anti-library.
pro-our existing lib-32n2
Posted: Tue, Dec 15 2015, 11:36 am EST
Post subject: Re: Library's surveillance policy is discussed
Quote:
The anti-library people see no concern.
Should this read "anti-new library building" instead? All the people I know who do not want to build a new library are still pro-library, they just don't want a new building.
anon-s6p5
Posted: Tue, Dec 15 2015, 10:17 am EST
Post subject: Re: Library's surveillance policy is discussed
I think discussing the facts is fine and appropriate.
However, clouding the facts with subjective comments either way is distorting.
It seems the pro library people are tied to the school element because they feel it is the best argument to use to win.
The anti-library people see no concern.
For most individuals the truth is in the middle. Is it the best solution to have the library in the school. No, it is not. Is it a crisis as it is projected, no it is not.
The issue is that I see is both sides create issues. Those citing safety annoy many people because it makes it sound like we're Trenton or other bad areas. This is not accurate and it rubs many people the wrong way.
The flip side is that there are some safety issues that should be addressed.
The one area the library ignores though is that there are solutions for security. Open later, work with the school so the kids are in there before say 1 or 2pm. Or do as they used to do and open at 3pm.
anon-pn6r
Posted: Tue, Dec 15 2015, 10:00 am EST
Post subject: Re: Library's surveillance policy is discussed
The past employee knows very well how the number of visitors to the library is calculated, dividing the counter numbers in two, subtracting for the kids who go in and out of the doors. Perhaps they miss a few, just as they miss a few when a family of five comes in all at once. But logic and reason will not matter to those who like to double-down on their version of the truth. There was an opportunity to discuss real issues here, but to those who are not swayed by the reality of the situation - the public library does not belong in the school library - it will not matter.
anon-4435
Posted: Mon, Dec 14 2015, 8:24 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Library's surveillance policy is discussed
anon-8368 wrote:
no-pp98 wrote:
anon-4840 wrote:
The number is tracked at the door electronically. So that number is better than some anonymous poster calling it BS.
However as there are no hours and people walk in as a family, kids run in and out, etc... I am not sure I would say 158 unique visitors came each day. But I could see a slightly lower average given the programs run. Even still it is a good number.
The circulation I don't doubt at all.
I used to work at the library and we all knew the counter it counts people coming in and going out it is double counting also kids after school will go in and out many many times back and forth the numbers are not right we also knew from those numbers the only time other then when we ran a program that we were busy was after school when the kids were in the library. the rest of the the time we were open if kids were not in the library from the school we only would have a small trickle of people coming in and out of the library Cranbury does not need a new library
The library does have numbers that would be more accurate and more useful, such as, how many unique adults check out materials on an average day?
For example, if roughly half of the check outs are adults, and the average check out includes 3 items, then there are approximately 7,000 adult check outs per year (41,314/2 = 20657/3 = 6886), or about 25 adults per day check out items from the library, on average. This equates to about 3 adult check outs per hour of operation.
Or as the previous library worker noted, aside from kids after school and a few special programs, only a small trickle of people come in and out of the library most of the time. Perhaps this is why the library won't share the numbers that really count?
So, mathematically, there are usually about as many adult patrons in the library as there are librarians.
Why exactly do we need a new building?
anon-8368
Posted: Mon, Dec 14 2015, 10:29 am EST
Post subject: Re: Library's surveillance policy is discussed
no-pp98 wrote:
anon-4840 wrote:
The number is tracked at the door electronically. So that number is better than some anonymous poster calling it BS.
However as there are no hours and people walk in as a family, kids run in and out, etc... I am not sure I would say 158 unique visitors came each day. But I could see a slightly lower average given the programs run. Even still it is a good number.
The circulation I don't doubt at all.
I used to work at the library and we all knew the counter it counts people coming in and going out it is double counting also kids after school will go in and out many many times back and forth the numbers are not right we also knew from those numbers the only time other then when we ran a program that we were busy was after school when the kids were in the library. the rest of the the time we were open if kids were not in the library from the school we only would have a small trickle of people coming in and out of the library Cranbury does not need a new library
The library does have numbers that would be more accurate and more useful, such as, how many unique adults check out materials on an average day?
For example, if roughly half of the check outs are adults, and the average check out includes 3 items, then there are approximately 7,000 adult check outs per year (41,314/2 = 20657/3 = 6886), or about 25 adults per day check out items from the library, on average. This equates to about 3 adult check outs per hour of operation.
Or as the previous library worker noted, aside from kids after school and a few special programs, only a small trickle of people come in and out of the library most of the time. Perhaps this is why the library won't share the numbers that really count?
no-pp98
Posted: Sun, Dec 13 2015, 8:59 am EST
Post subject: Re: Library's surveillance policy is discussed
anon-4840 wrote:
The number is tracked at the door electronically. So that number is better than some anonymous poster calling it BS.
However as there are no hours and people walk in as a family, kids run in and out, etc... I am not sure I would say 158 unique visitors came each day. But I could see a slightly lower average given the programs run. Even still it is a good number.
The circulation I don't doubt at all.
I used to work at the library and we all knew the counter it counts people coming in and going out it is double counting also kids after school will go in and out many many times back and forth the numbers are not right we also knew from those numbers the only time other then when we ran a program that we were busy was after school when the kids were in the library. the rest of the the time we were open if kids were not in the library from the school we only would have a small trickle of people coming in and out of the library Cranbury does not need a new library