Features

On July 13 at their monthly meeting, the Berkeley Board of Library Trustees announced a forum to be held Aug. 1 at the South Berkeley Senior Center, titled “RFID: What’s it all about?” The supposed aim of this forum is to assemble a group of experts who will discuss the pros and cons of radio frequency identification (RFID) equipment and the appropriateness of its installation in the Berkeley Public Library system. 

This “forum,” more than a year after the board authorized and spent three quarters of a million dollars of Berkeley taxpayers’ money on RFID, and after RFID equipment has already been installed in Berkeley libraries, is a mockery. The San Francisco Public Library held hearings and meetings before they made a decision about RFID, and they rejected it. We were never given a choice. 

Months ago, squads of temporary employees were hired and deployed to stick RFID devices in our library materials. Gates have been erected in the libraries to monitor what we are checking out. The bar codes already in our library materials have been a cheap and efficient way to check materials in and out of our libraries and there was no reason to supplement them. (Contrary to claims by the director, repetitive stress injuries of library staff declined dramatically last year, before RFID equipment was installed.) 

If we, the taxpayers, who are being subjected to this questionable technology, decide that it is an unwanted invasion of our community and potentially dangerous to our privacy and to our health, does the library administration intend to remove the equipment and give our money back? 

The sole purpose of this forum is to pretend that the director and the board are going to be influenced by a free and open discussion of RFID, which is absurd. Some experts on RFID have already said they will decline to participate in the Berkeley forum unless there is the potential for these devices to be removed. 

Library Director, Jackie Griffin, whose idea it was to buy this equipment, seems to have no difficulty steamrolling through damaging changes to a local library system that was a national model of excellence. Her position as “secretary” to the board puts her in a role of power that is entirely inappropriate. Griffin monitors materials presented to the board, prepares minutes, and mail to board members is sent to her office. She is indifferent, at best, to suggestions and criticism from the public and from library staff. As library director, she is supposed to be our employee, and responsive to us, the board and the City Council. Instead she seems to be functioning like the CEO of a private company. 

The Berkeley Charter says trustees are appointed by the City Council, and trustees are responsible for the actions of the director. Until we start paying attention to board appointments, and until a more responsible attitude is adopted, we will see further dismantling of the Berkeley library system.  

Shirley Stuart is a Berkeley resident.