Tonia Grafakos, Marie A. Quinlan Director of Preservation, Northwestern University
For 2020-2021, the CARLI Preservation Committee is sharing a series of interviews to explore CARLI members' responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. In June 2021, Tonia Grafakos, Marie A. Quinlan Director of Preservation at Northwestern University, asks Bonnie Parr, Historical Documents Conservator at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum (ALPLM), to discuss how the Presidential Library responded to COVID-19 and how the pandemic affected operations and patron interactions.
Read the project overview here: https://www.carli.illinois.edu/products-services/collections-management/preservation-response-covid-19.
Interview with Bonnie Parr: |
What was your institution’s original response to the statewide closure in March 2020? |
In the days before closure to the public (which occurred on March 13), cleaning protocols were put into place – hand sanitizer dispensers were distributed to all departments, high-touch surfaces were cleaned, and staff were encouraged to wash their hands more frequently. I was asked to research sources of information about the COVID-19 virus and handling collection materials. When it became apparent that everyone except essential staff (security, building engineers, and maintenance staff) was going to work remotely from home, our IT staff held training sessions about online tools to use for communication and to access work files. All staff were asked to think about projects that could be done remotely, what files we needed to take home or access for remote work, and what procedures we needed to do to shut down our departments for an extended period. The last day before closure on March 17, all library departments returned collection items to stacks storage – which are secure, climate-controlled spaces. Conservation staff inventoried all the items we were working on in the Lab, with notes on their treatment status and stacks storage locations, so we would know what we had been doing when we resumed on-site work. We thought, of course, that the closure was for two weeks… Our first closure lasted from March 17, 2020 through the end of June 2020. From July to November, library staff were restricted to 50% personnel on-site. The second closure occurred on November 19, but by December library staff were allowed on-site one day a week. We returned to full-time on-site work March 15, 2021 (staff were allowed some flexibility to schedule work at home for certain situations, such as childcare). The library opened to the public June 14, 2021. |
What staff and departments were involved? |
All |
Were there special considerations for how your institution handled physical resources? |
During the March closure, all collection materials were placed in stacks storage. The library doesn’t circulate its collections, so materials were not in use from March until July 2020, when staff returned on a limited basis. In late June 2020, there was considerable discussion on quarantining items – where to store materials during quarantine (on carts in an office supply closet), for how long (we started with 72 hours), and handling protocols (wearing nitrile gloves when pulling or re-shelving materials and washing hands afterwards). Quarantine times changed as research seemed at first to indicate longer periods of time the COVID-19 virus remained viable on surfaces (we quarantined materials up to 9 days at one point) and then when thinking in the field indicated a relatively minor risk of catching the disease from potential surface contamination. We now quarantine library materials for 24 hours, while maintaining the same wearing gloves/washing hands protocols. |
What were some preservation or conservation activities that were accomplished during the closure? |
Just before closing, library staff were in the middle of updating the library’s collections policy. While working from home, I wrote the section on collections care. I also wrote an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) policy, which we didn’t have previously in formal written form. While working from home, my assistant and I took advantage of the online opportunities for continuing education that were offered during this time – webinars presented by conservation and preservation-related organizations, the virtual conference of the American Institute for Conservation, archived recordings made available by the Guild of Book Workers, and conservation-related courses. |
How did the closure and the re-opening impact preservation/conservation at your institution? |
Conservation work stopped abruptly. Obviously, we couldn’t take historical materials home to work on. Staff weren’t allowed to work on-site for 3 months. When we returned (and, oh how dusty the Lab was!), conservation was limited to simple treatments that didn’t need constant monitoring or multi-day work. Because only 50% staffing was allowed initially, my assistant and I alternated workdays on-site. We missed working together. Communication was done via email, texting, and Facetime, but it didn’t have the same “spark” for exchanging ideas or problem solving. I was able to monitor dataloggers remotely and communicate any concerns to the building engineers – who would follow up by checking their monitoring records, troubleshooting problems, or letting me know of any work on the HVAC systems that affected temperature and humidity levels. Collections management activities in other library departments switched from physical work (shelf-reading, processing) to database management (creating or updating online records). |
The information for the following questions is provided by the librarians from the Reference, AudioVisual, Manuscripts, and Newspapers on Microfilm departments. What were/are you doing to fulfill patron requests during this time? |
During the shutdown, patron requests were handled via phone and email. Extra time was taken to see if materials could be provided digitally either through online collections or scanning. The number of scanning requests received greatly increased during this time. Presently, the library is open for research by appointment only. We ask that materials be requested in advance and are currently limiting the number of patrons who can be in the Reading Room at a time. |
What is your institution doing to incorporate lessons learned into future practices? |
The Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum has sought to meet our audience where they are during the pandemic and this had led us to increase our virtual offerings. Whereas before we placed limits on time and volume for scanning orders, during the pandemic we removed those limits. This assisted researchers in their projects during the pandemic and may also encourage further on-site research as restrictions ease. In the library, we noticed that the increase in appointment planning and materials requesting before arrival at the library led to a much better patron experience. It gave the researcher an opportunity to think about their needs, discuss the visit with our staff beforehand, and maximize their time during their Reading Room visit. We hope to continue to engage with patrons in this way as pandemic restrictions are lifted. |
What did you learn from this experience? Has your institution changed? |
For the library departments that handle patron requests, the emphasis on appointments gave staff a chance to schedule time to learn about the collection while preparing for the researcher’s arrival. This helps enhance patron service and staff knowledge. In the Manuscripts Department, staff developed a project-oriented approach to scanning requests. With staff time still limited, they maintain a weekly scheduled scanning time to accommodate increased scanning orders more efficiently. |
Which sources have you relied on to inform your institutional policies? |
|
How did you learn about those sources? |
|
Return to A Snapshot of Our Preservation / Conservation Response to COVID-19 at CARLI Member Libraries, the homepage of the Preservation Committee's 2020-2021 Annual Project.