Books not a major part of libraries?

Interesting article in today's Advertiser (in the SA Weekend supplement).  Titled "Battle Royal", it describes the ongoing dispute between the State Library of South Australia and the Royal Geographic Society of South Australia over the disposition of the RGS's York Gate Library.  Unfortunately, the article is not yet available online but I will post it for you when it is.

What caught my interest though is this statement in the article:

"Similarly, the collection had been dismissed by (Arts Minister John) Hill as 'a collection of books... not a major part of the library's services these days'."

I think this is a contentious point of view, to say the least.  Only last night, I was looking at a report from the OCLC - Perceptions of libraries and information resources - on the "library" brand and it said:

"Roughly 70 percent of respondents, across all geographic regions and U.S. age groups, associate library first and foremost with books.  There was no runner-up." (Their italics)

Now I would be one of the first to say that libraries are not in the "books" business but the "information" business.  Nonetheless, I am astounded by Minister Hill's statement.  The York Gate Library is not just a "collection of books" - it was amassed by William Silver, a London tea merchant, and focuses on books and documents on geography, exploration and colonisation.  It was purchased by the RGS in 1905 and has considerable historical and cultural value.  And the assertion that books are not a major part of the library's business, well, Minister Hill, I suspect that the 1,064,842 visitors to the State Library* would beg to differ.

As do I.

On a separate note, the City of Mitcham in Adelaide has advertised for a Customer Services Librarian if anyone is interested in applying.

Cheers!

Catherine

* Libraries Board of South Australia, Annual Report 2008-2009