Resource Services
Report
April 30, 2002
To complete the charge, the Task Force spoke to or communicated via e-mail with many people. Because there was a library-wide building security survey conducted in March, we requested the RS comments. Lisa Shipman was very cooperative in providing those. We also conducted a short survey of RS staff since we want to express all staff concerns, not just those of the members of the Task Force. We were thanked many times for working on this issue.
Many RS staff expressed how much they appreciate being allowed to work a flexible schedule. This flexibility is seen as one of the best benefits RS provides, since the flexible work schedules allow staff to compensate to some extent for the university's limited holidays and leave. Team Leaders were seen as being open to flexible schedules, thus access to the buildings becomes an important element in just how much flexibility staff can implement.
In order to address the part of our charge, “building issues beyond RS” we contacted Mathews, who took over management of the Baker building recently. The only policy that they have is that no one should work in the building alone. There should be at least two people in an office. Mathews is in the process of making changes to stairway access and to the garage. The recent library security survey showed these as major problems for people working in Baker (see security/safety below).
To answer the same type of questions for the GLB we communicated with John Haar who supplied a copy of the 1995 policy as well as information on the security system. He also directed us to Janet Thomason for additional information. We spoke to Juanita Murray and Bill Hook, the people who direct the operations of other GLB tenants. Juanita Murray did not express any problems with the current policy and indicated that she is the only person in Special Collections with a key to the building (per the 1995 policy). However, Janet indicated that someone had entered Special Collections early one Sunday morning. Janet receives a report each week and checks all “early or late” entries into the GLB (except for housekeeping). Bill Hook indicated some frustration with the 1995 policy and feels that the needs of the GLB tenants can be met and still have a comfortable degree of security for the GLB. The variations of hours for Central during breaks have caused problems for Divinity. It appears that GLB tenants have access issues that are not well served by the 1995 policy or the current implementation.
RS Staff concerns about building access generally fall into 2 categories: security/safety and equality/consistency.
I. Security/safety
A. Baker
1. Locked stairwell: This is of great concern to most staff. Since elevators stop running in many emergency situations, emergency personnel could be prevented from entering in a timely manner. Also, situations might occur where employees would be prevented from access to safer areas. As a security measure, locking the stairwells seems inefficient since anyone can enter the building during the day. Long waits for the elevator was another reason staff would like the stairwells unlocked. [As of 4/30/02 the stairway has been opened 7:00 AM-5:00 PM]
2. Day access: Lack of controlled access during the day concerns many people. No one is monitoring the lobby or the security cameras (right now they only tape and it can be reviewed after a problem has occurred).
3. Inaccessibility during “off-hours”: When the building is closed (e.g. evenings, holidays) staff must have keys (see equality issue). This can cause problems not only of inconvenience, but also of safety. For example, if you leave your car keys in the office you cannot return and are left on the street without access to building or car. It would also be desirable to have an on-campus phone in the lobby in case employees need to reach their coworkers to gain access, since currently most employees do not have access to elevators after hours.
B. GLB
1. Early mornings: The greatest safety concern at GLB seems to be early morning access. Staff members have to wait outside at the loading dock to be let in by “authorized” staff. There is no way to know exactly when this will occur and since most people have to park in the garage they can not see when the designated “opener” arrives and must therefore wait by the door.
2. Loading dock/mailroom doors: Staff have reported that often there is no one present to monitor these doors and anyone can walk in off the street. It has also been reported that on weekends or other times the door is supposed to be locked, it has been propped open by workers. The alarm is hard to hear (so if you set it off you don’t know it) and there is no notification at Central circulation that it is alarming. The ultimate result is that Vanderbilt Security may ignore GLB alarms and only come to investigate if called.
II. Equality/Consistency
A. Baker
1. Determination of who has keys in many cases is “historical” i.e. dates back to Doug’s decisions (and he never gave reasons for his decisions). People who work at Baker do not understand how one “qualifies” to obtain building and office access, so the impression is one of favoritism.
2. It seems that all those who arrive very early have access to either the building or both the building and the office. This is certainly desirable from a security standpoint (no waiting outside), but there does not seem to be equal accommodation for those who might want/need to work after 6 p.m.
3. While it is obvious that most of LITS might need keys to have access to equipment, it does cause others to feel like second-class employees. When someone in O.S. needs to work late, they usually have to ask LITS staff if anyone is staying – since they all have keys. Also, it is against Mathews’s policy (and not safe) for a LITS employee to work alone in the office.
4. Baker RS staff has no ability to work on weekends, while GLB RS staff does. Mathews states that it is fine with them if people work during the weekend as long as there are always at least two people in the office, so weekend access is an option.
5. Housekeeping crews (not just the crew chief) have keys to the building.
B. GLB
- There is “equality” within RS/GLB in that no one has keys. It does seem odd, however, that even those listed as being “on call” for emergencies do not have keys.
- Other tenants feel like second-class employees since only Central staff have keys and determine building hours.
- Housekeeping staff frequently works in the GLB (particularly Sunday mornings) when we are not allowed access. Do the safety concerns apply to them? Do they know the emergency procedures?
- The RS staff has no early morning building access upon arrival, while Baker RS staff does.
Recommendations
We recommend that as much as possible, building access should be equalized within RS. This would mean finding some way for GLB staff to enter upon arrival, and for Baker staff to work weekends. For Baker, the first preference would be issuing keys and elevator fobs as appropriate. Other options could involve having a “weekend” key and fob available to anyone willing to coordinate a schedule with a coworker, or (our last choice) providing space at the GLB for weekend work. For GLB we have considered several options. While not within “current policy”, our first choice would be to change the exterior door lock into the binding/marking area to one that uses an access code or card access to be used only when the building is not officially open. Another option would be to issue some keys or install card access at the breezeway entrance on the Special Collections side that could allow access to only that small area (staff would be out of the weather while they wait for an “authorized person” to arrive and staff would feel safer in the building).
It is important for morale to let employees know they are trusted and treated equally. An objective policy (e.g. anyone willing to accept certain responsibilities gets a key) allows each person to determine for her/himself the level of responsibility that he/she wants. Part of that responsibility could involve communicating with other staff (including LITS) if one intends to work at a time no one is usually scheduled to work. Giving individuals responsibility also avoids burdening other employees.
Baker
We are encouraged that Mathews is making some changes at the Baker building. Over and over the stairwell access to floors was stated as a security issue as well as one of personal safety in times of emergency. Mathews should be further encouraged to install a phone in the lobby and institute some security control in the lobby so that there is not “unscreened” access to the building. Theft and vandalism have been problems in the Baker building so security should be a concern. RS should also take this opportunity to address the need for security and emergency procedures for all staff. We recommend that RS Management write and post a policy that addresses what a staff member needs to do to qualify for a key and elevator fob and what responsibilities are involved.
GLB
We are also encouraged that there has been a security survey. RS management should encourage a re-examination of the existing 1995 policy. RS staff feels much less safe waiting outside than being inside the building. The loading dock area is neither secure while waiting, nor after the door is opened, and left unattended. The policy seems to expect that a mailroom employee will open the building and be in the mailroom, but that is seldom the case now. Other public entrances that are used by RS staff have campus security phones nearby and fewer places for “street people” to hide. The campus side of the building is considered by staff to be safer than the 21st side near the loading dock. Each tenant has an exterior door that could be used for access, and most tenants already constitute an alarm zone although some rewiring would be necessary. We recommend that the loading dock door not be used as the early morning staff entrance (this could be done within the existing 1995 policy). For personal safety reasons, we recommend that RS management work to adjust the current policy so that staff can enter the building upon arrival (while still waiting for the official opening before going to their own offices). RS staff should be aware of emergency procedures and those who enter early should know building responsibilities. The reasons for limiting access that are stated in the 1995 document, include knowing emergency or locking up procedures, but this tends to become circular reasoning (i.e. you have access because you know procedures, but you know procedures because you have access).
Concluding comments
Building security and safety issues are being considered at many levels within the library and by Mathews. Since the Task Force was appointed we have heard many comments about security including many about garage security. We have not addressed the parking security issue since it does not involve access to our workspace. However, the safety of parking is important and we hope that it will be considered.
One comment that does cause us a great deal of concern is that our work/report might result in limiting RS staff’s ability to set their own schedules. Some people are afraid they will be forced to work weekends while others are afraid they will have less ability to have a flexible schedule. We hope that these fears can be quickly laid to rest by a statement from RS Management.
We are certain that it has never been the intent of RS or Library Management to make employees feel that they are not trusted, but in many cases this seems to have been the unfortunate effect of the existing situation. Library and RS policies should not result in RS staff being made to feel that they are not trusted as much as housekeeping staff. Any steps that can be taken to correct this impression by improving access will be greatly appreciated by staff.
RS Building Access Task Force