Nothing like using a famous literary character in an argument about libraries. Between me mentioning Jean Valjean and your instruction I believe literature has been well-served.

Just to put some perspective on this, boing boing charges 2525.00 per week for a banner ad. This story is better than a banner ad. It is a permanent story with an image, that is getting lots of page views. For free. The New York Times charges much more than that, and this is in the news section, so you cant even get in that area without a good PR department.

So for a fine of $500 this ethics violation is getting more than $2525 from boingboing alone. Good return on your unethical behavior.

Now what if the school picked up the book for a class? How many copies would that mean? He did claim as a librarian that this was the best book ever, so why couldnt a teacher take his word for it and suggest it be picked up for classroom use?

The article said he could have lost his job and could have lost his teaching certificate. Instead he got a slap on the wrist. It is not excessive. Just because he is or was a teacher doesnt mean that he is not paid. The article doesnt say what his salary is, but all you folks think he is some destitute teacher supporting his student daughter’s ambitious efforts. Not so. He is promoting his ADULT daughter’s product on government property – illegally. He got off lightly.

All you folks arguing that this is mindless jackbootery are doing a disservice to ethics. Ethics is about honesty and fairness. Arguing that it is okay to be a little dishonest and playing a little favoritism is okay – only helps the violators and hurts those of us (taxpayers) that think everyone should be treated fairly and not be allowed to abuse their positions – regardless of their intentions or how little it hurts the rest of us.

If this was a politician who left a stack of books written by a lobbyist on the reception desk of his constituency office, and gave them away to any constituent who was interested, then no, I would probably not be outraged.

If the politician spent the public funds he was entrusted with guarding, on 100,000 copies of the lobbyist’s book, that would be another matter. But a dozen copies bought out of his own pocket – so what?

In terms of the publicity issue, I would say that in this particular context, the level of publicity and advertising that were provided would have resulted in a negligible amount of financial gain, (compared to the financial gain that may be generated from the free advertising that the work is receiving now because of the issue being widely reported). What I was getting at is that free publicity can result in financial gain, but that it doesn’t guarantee it.

In terms of the library setting, libraries/ school systems pay huge amounts of money to publishers, vendors, etc. to provide access for patrons to their resources (books and databases aren’t cheap, and the vendors aren’t gonna make any money by giving things away). Cafeterias on the other hand are probably another matter.

I don’t have a problem with a slap on the wrist, I think $500 is EXCESSIVE

@117 IAWUC

Also, (not an endorsement for Amazon, but) if you buy it as part of the series there, you get 4 for 3– I also got Hamlet, Shakespeare, and Tempest and spent less than 30 bucks. LOL. My manga Shakespeare collection begins, thanks to ethics violations and BoingBOING..

You’re raving. I don’t know what your deal is, but give it a rest.

nd lts ll gt md bcs th bg gys gt wy wth trgs thcs vltns bt fght fr th lttl gy t gt wy wth thcs vltns.

r… w cld b cnsstnt. Whn smn brks thcs rls, w trt t lk t s, n thcs vltn. Cnsstncy – nt blnd mypc nfrcmnt – cnsstncy.

Ouch. Be nice, now.

I’m seeing all these comments about the great ‘violation of trust’ this librarian has committed. Are librarians really considered authority figures in society? A library’s newsletter about books has no more weight on my mind and decisions than, say, a movie critique’s column. You can agree or disagree, pick up the book(for free) or don’t. He didn’t elaborate some sordid conspiracy to generate profit for his daughter and the only big publicity stunt he pulled was offering the books for free. Wow. Big fraud case here.

I don’t mind governmental entities, non-profits and non-partisan organizations providing free materials at libraries, but it crosses the lines when libraries are out-and-out promoting the work of a specific author without that author being present to answer questions and engage with patrons.

If any author out there feels violated because their book wasn’t pitched and it is ‘not fair’, I’m pretty sure no one would kick them out for asking the library to give out their book as publicity. The last 20 times I saw authors prsenting their own, new book was at the book store, not the public library. And they weren’t giving away any books for free.

But really what it comes down to is that when I see someone getting slammed for expressing his joy and sharing something, perhaps a bit personal BUT totally and obviously harmless to his community, I understand why most people just don’t want to bother trying to get involved anymore.

Especially if the bank robbers end up making more money later from all the free publicity from outraged readers who think they shouldnt have been punished at all.

The proud dad thought the publicity and advertising were valuable or he wouldnt have bothered. He used his position of influence to promote a relatives product. It is an ethics violation.

Relaxing rules arbitrarily leads to further corruption, not less.

This is a very complicated ethical case that falls right on the line. I can see why the librarian getting slapped with a $500 fine seems pretty harsh to a lot of people, but obviously that wasn’t the harshest treatment he could have received – he still apparently has (and wants) the job there.

I’d bet he probably feels he made a mistake by over promoting his daughter’s book, and anyone who doesn’t think that lots of parents use a publicly funded library newsletter for ideas for gift purchases doesn’t know many parents. I bet many of those parents were irked, and many others felt bad for the librarian. It just isn’t cut and dried either way.

The reality though is that he isn’t horribly victimized in the end. He still has his job, and he paid $500 posthumously for the service of using the library to promote his daughter’s book and well as for the future promotion value of the current news and blog item. If his daughter is half as generous to family members as he is, he’ll likely make it back.

Meanwhile, I’m really in the mood for pie. Pie, indeed, is the answer.

I’m addressing you both since you both seem on this “Justice is Blind”.

First, you’re using that old saw in the wrong way. Justice is blind to wealth, race and privilage, not to the context of the offense. That would make justice blind, deaf and, frankly, dumb.

Second, this is not a court of law, this is a body enforcing and “ethics code” in a manner that is both capricious and ridiculous. They’ve chosen to fine an educator hundreds of dollars. This is the same system that refuses to acknowledge the value of educators by paying them well.

Third, you’re ignoring the facts to make your arguments. He clearly stated his relationship in the newsletter and in the library itself he was giving the book away. Again, giving. For free. Yes, you can see this as promotion, but that’s, at best, myopic.

The rigidity of your ethical standards are simply nonsense. They go beyond common sense and instead ask people to exist in a moral vacuum, where the cop shaking down the dealer is on part with a librarian giving away books. That’s moral equivocation and, as Chaucer noted, that path to hell is paved with it.

Using his position to promote a person or firm associated with a public servant.

Simple conflict of interest as defined by the Charter.

Ethics is a set of principles – as such, it does not require specific victims, damages or necessitate the diminishment of one’s capacity to fulfil their role.
It is a broad platform designed to uphold the integrity of an institution/s.

For all its inflexibility, you are better off with it than without it.

No, Polly cannot have a cracker as that violates section 2443…

Relaxing rules arbitrarily does not lead to corruption. Rules are relaxed all over the place all the goddam time. For instance, today I got stopped for riding my bike on the pavement by a PSCO. Technically she should have given me a fine, but because I argued my case (the road was full of asshole traffic and the pavement was empty) and I was vaguely charming (a nudge is as good as a wink to a blind man) I didn’t get fined. OH NOES! Corruption!

Also – I get the feeling that ‘the daughter’ probably had her book published by a ‘publishing company’ which had already paid for its own ‘promotion’. I doubt that she, or the publishing company, needed this tiny, minuscule, insignificant extra push.

But…what the hell…you guys are right. Only rich people with access to PR companies and that kind of thing should be allowed to have their products promoted. Anywhere. Plutocracy for the win!

Not to sound too touchy, but, well, we’re professionals and we consider ourselves to be “authorities” or “experts” on various library issues, depending on our particular schooling and practical experience (such as intellectual freedom, reader’s advisory, collection development, reference services, information retrieval, etc. etc.). This doesn’t mean that we’re authority figures in the same way that an police officer, judge, etc, would be seen, just that we can speak about or do certain things with “authority”. Your comment I think says alot about the public’s perception of the profession, however.

Codswallop. You just said that it is what it is because it is what it is. Ethics is not just a set of principles. Ethics is an algorithm for determining the rightness or wrongness of an action. When you reduce it to a set of pre-set principles, you are just parroting someone else’s judgment that was rendered at another time and place. It might apply or it might not. Prove that what he did was wrong by some standard other than “it’s just wrong.”

#46 – Librarian’s are entrusted with a number of things (respecting and ensuring a patron’s privacy, for one), but none that I think apply in this situation (I agree with your other comments, just wanted to state that).

Yh lts jst gr tht bcs y thnk t s ky fr smn t gt rwrdd fr thcs vltns nd y cnt s th hrm n smn bsng thr pstn fr fnncl gn, lts jst gr tht t s ky nd lts jst gr tht nfrcmnt f thcs s bd.

nd lts ll gt md bcs th bg gys gt wy wth trgs thcs vltns bt fght fr th lttl gy t gt wy wth thcs vltns.

r… w cld b cnsstnt. Whn smn brks thcs rls, w trt t lk t s, n thcs vltn. Cnsstncy – nt blnd mypc nfrcmnt – cnsstncy.

SPUD@37: Clearly you missed the part in the original post and in several comments above that the work is by William Shakespeare. Perhaps the guy really does believe it to be the best book ever written. Perhaps that is why his daughter chose that particular book to illustrate. A manga illustrated version is going to be more accessible to kids than dry text, and this is a great way to give an introductory point to the Bard.

SPUD@44: The individual details of any case are always important in dispensing justice. That’s why we have judges hearing cases, so that they can apply the spirit of a given law to the particular circumstances of any case, and not just a blanket sentence being mandated by robots indiscriminately in all but misdemeanor traffic violations.

But if you insert “Person A” and “Person A’s associate” into your ethical decision-making algorithm, you are likely to end up with a slap on the wrist or a $500 fine.

If he put up a big sign “MY DAUGHTER illustrated this GREAT BOOK! Everybody buy one!” it would be OK. Nobody in their right mind would object.

If he recommended it (even once!) without disclosing his interests, that’s unethical. Not shoot-the-bastard unethical or fine-the-creep-$500 unethical, more like ask-him-nicely-to-do-it-right unethical.

When I was in school, I was in awe of the mighty librarians. Of course that was when dinosaurs ruled the earth, so perhaps librarians today get no respect (as well as incredibly low salaries). In my day librarians were known for their rigid enforcement of the rules; woe betide the child who spoke above a whisper in the school library! You’d be fed to the allosaurs post-haste.

–Charlie

Take a day off from posting. I’ll reinstate your account tomorrow.