Skip to content

Change Management Ideas Solicited

Change by alexlc13, on Flickr

Change by alexlc13, on Flickr

In February I’m giving a talk to medical librarians that explores these questions:

  • How do we know when and what to let go?
  • What are the ingredients to effective change management?
  • How do we inspire buy-in from those we work with and from our key stakeholders?

I would add this final point that has arisen In Light Of Recent Events:

  • How do we recognize and respond to strategic moments?

This is one of those cases where I feel the audacity of addressing these questions. Do I really know the answers, even in part? I have led change from time to time, but have I done it well, and and have I learned from the experiences, particularly the bad ones?

Then it occurred to me that change is like eating: everyone does it. So I turn back to you, gentle readers. What do you say?

(Yes, it has occurred to me that I have had recent experience with a kerfuffle that was almost entirely about change management from every possible angle. For the wisest observations and best roundup of other posts, see Michael Golrick, and no, I’m not just sending you there because he liked my post–he raised the “strategic moment” issue that needs greater attention and that I didn’t address.)

By the way, Brad, I’m really hoping you chip in with some observations on Evergreen.

Armadillos on Fire: Revisiting ALA’s Open Meeting Policy

Claire the Armadillo, courtesy Houston city gov.

Claire the Armadillo, courtesy Houston city gov.

Last Saturday at the LITA board meeting, board member Jason Griffey set an armadillo on fire and let it loose in the room. I watched in amazement as board members (metaphorically) leapt on chairs and screamed.

The armadillo was ALA’s open meeting policy, and the fire was Jason opening his MacBook and streaming the proceedings to the world at large.  Within minutes the fire was put out, when board members voted to request that Jason kill the streaming. Jason complied.

Several of us continued Tweeting the proceedings; there were complaints about this as well, directed to No One In Particular but obviously pointed at us. But if the membership ain’t free to write about what happens at an open meeting, we’re in gulag territory, so I played dumb. Elsewhere librarians have observed that complaining about tweeting after voting to kill the stream was disingenuous.

In general, it’s a bad idea to surprise your boss or your board. If you’re doing this routinely, you aren’t a maverick; you simply lack the skill or discipline to communicate and coordinate. To use an mnemonic the team I was on cooked up  at Squadron Officer School back in the day, Purple Oranges Don’t Cause Cancer: responsible action requires planning, organizing, delegating, coordinating, and communicating.

However, an organization that routinely streams other open meetings should not be startled when, in 2011, the camera shows up at their proceedings. Frankly, the board was not prepared for virtual participation, which in 2011 is all wrong for an organization where the “T” means technology. Streaming (thankfully) isn’t new to LITA;  LITA’s Top Technology Trends was streamed the next day, as it has been for a while, and I don’t know that anyone complained. You’re going to reply, but that’s a program! No, my friends, at Midwinter, we don’t HAVE programs, remember? TTT at Midwinter is an open meeting. Check the schedule.

Boards rely on trust relationships, and the generational disconnect between Jason’s action and the board’s reaction didn’t build that trust. But I will swear by Ranganathan that Jason wasn’t trying to pull a fast one. The board may also think I was invited just for this event–which I was not. When I realized Jason was streaming, I vaguely thought “That’s cool,” and my brain moved on.

That is exactly the response I have had in describing the incident to people:

Me: The LITA board was being streamed…

Person: Oh yeah? That’s cool…

Me: Um…

Ironically, at Sunday’s Top Technology Trends, none of the Trendsters commented on streaming as a trend, which could mean it isn’t novel enough to mention. (Or it could mean that the trends were generally a bit cerebral, save those of Monique; it was a good discussion, but I will share my own, far more sublunary trends in a day or two.)

At the meeting, the board tried to retrofit its reaction, reasoning that there was a consultant presenting copyrighted material.  But that assumes that there is some middle ground for open meetings where they are open to the people in the room but not to ALA members elsewhere. The policy does not establish or even mention such a middle ground, though it is one that has been long-assumed by some members.

On the other hand, the complaints on Twitter that the stream should have been left wide open are a bit naive about current ALA open meeting policy. I’m not defending the wording, but as it stands, meetings at conferences are open to registered attendees. You might find this absurd or restrictive, but in its time, this was part of a broad series of reforms. Well before my time, in the late 1960s, there was an “ALAgate” that had to do with… open meetings. The more things change…

Anyhoo, the Open Meeting policy has obviously been OBT (Overcome By Technology). Also, the Incident of the Armadillo Engulfed in Flames has surfaced something even more  intriguing, which is that all of that maverick-y streaming of routine work done by divisions such as ACRL, YALSA, RUSA, etc. (organizations that unlike LITA are not hemmoraging members and revenue) is technically out of compliance with ALA policy. You’ve All Been Breaking The Law!

I am not advocating cease-and-desist. In fact, based on the numbers, OBT lawbreaking appears to be key to fiduciary health; allowing for the impact of a very bad economy, the “streamers” are doing better overall than the “meatwares.”

However counterintuitive to the people who count nickels, the more you open your proceedings, the healthier your organization (which is in line with a finding from the Task Force on Electronic Meeting Participation–more about that below–that there is a correlation between the rise of member access to technology and increased attendance at ALA conferences).  If that’s the case, and we all agree that ALA is itself a higher good, then particularly after ALA’s recent fiscal troubles, it’s clear that the law needs to be brought into line with good practice.

ALA as a body needs to immediately point its wonkiest law-making committees at the “open meeting” question, and the response — which needs to happen no later than Annual 2011 — needs to be both informed by ALA values (such as our historical commitment to intellectual freedom) and by our urgent need to stop losing money.

We began to explore the definition of open meetings on the Task Force on Electronic Meeting Participation (hi Janet!), but even less than five years ago, our concern was not that streaming needed to be limited, but that ALA didn’t have the resources to make it widely available.

At the time, it seemed impossible to imagine that within five years a member could bring fairly standard personal technology to a meeting and use it to share the meeting with the world.  I think our points about Midwinter were (and are) quite valid–and perhaps prescient; I remember commenting more than once that a fiscal downturn could be a game-changer. But the comments about Midwinter also tended to distract people from other things we were saying (as Janet warned us might happen).

One warning to all is that as as rule, ALA committees tend to get focused on the idea that something needs to be made available to the entire association, BY the association, in a uniform manner. I’m all for authority control, but we need to let flowers bloom when they’re ready, and ease up on the argument that “we can’t afford it” because ALA, as an association, can’t personally put a camera in every meeting room. (And an organization where the “T” stands for technology should in theory have more than the usual number of early bloomers.)

Learning to bless a practice without mandating it would also allow ALA to become more Darwinian about its divisions.  It’s not good fiscal practice for ALA the bureaucracy to keep a division alive on artificial life support, and it’s not fair to the dues-paying members, either–it’s the equivalent of wasting taxpayer dollars on standing orders for print reference. If a division can’t evolve to meet the needs and expectations of ALA members, then we need to thank it for its years of service and send it on its way. (Incidentally, I’m not actually thinking of LITA as I write that–I’m going way back in time.)

Midwinter comes but once a year…

And when it comes, oh dear, oh dear! ALA Midwinter is next week?! How can that BE? It’s not even New Year’s yet!

In any event, here is my skeleton schedule for ALA and events leading up to it. Campus starts up again Tuesday, which is one reason I’m cutting Midwinter short. Work one day, head to two conferences… January will be a January with lots of extra January in it!

I have plenty of time for vendor visits and exhibit-walking, and meetings with friends where we both have a big asterisk hanging at present. See you in San Diego!

Wednesday 1/5

1.5-day annual conference in Santa Cruz for our campus ISAC program (Integrated Studies Across Cultures)

Thursday 1/6

Fly out of SFO 4:55, arrive SAN 6:25

7:30 Beer with Men

Friday 1/7

8:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m. Beams & Bytes: Constructing the Future Library — Architectural and Digital Considerations San Diego Convention Center, Room 04

Evening: open

Saturday 1/8

Breakfast/run with MJ. Power-talk many important things. Laugh at times gone by.

10:30 am – 12:00 pm (Tentative) The Power of Data, Technology and Community: the OCLC Platform Strategy. Hilton San Diego Bayfront Hotel, Aqua Room 314

4 p.m. Camino OCLC meeting

CHANGED LOCATION: 5:30 p.m. SCELC Reception, Hilton San Diego Bayfront Hotel, One Park Blvd (on south side of convention center), Suite 1101/1102

7 p.m. Dinner with old friends

6:00pm – 9:00pm GLBTRT Social, Rock Bottom Restaurant & Brewery, 401 G Street

Sunday 1/9

8 a.m. Breakfast w/K. Pick her brain for lively insights. Pick raisins off her oatmeal when she’s not looking.

10:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m. Navigator User Group, OCLC Blue Suite in the Hilton San Diego Bayfront at 1 Park Boulevard, San Diego.

Sunday afternoon: depart

The Devil Needs No Advocate

"All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy"

"All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy"

I was teaching a library-science class about a decade ago when a student snaked her hand into the air.

“You know how no good deed goes unpunished?” she asked.

“No,” I said, and continued lecturing.

I knew where she was going with that question, because I knew her from another context, where she was the self-designated killjoy who approached every project confident of its failure–which, for the record, is an excellent way to ensure failure happens. She’s the one who will ask, “Just to play Devil’s advocate”–as if Satan needed any help.

And we have all sat in meetings where this person  dwelled ad infinitum on every possible thing that could go wrong with a good idea that hadn’t even been launched, or itemized in exquisite detail the inevitable failings of any good idea in progress. There have been times when I have been this person (and will be again in the future), and for this I humbly repent.

I was reminded of this moment recently when I read the (relatively mild) commentary on an article in Library Journal, “Netflix-inspired Pilot Program for Borrowing in California Library Languishes,” and then, reluctantly, prodded from a Tweet, turned my eyes to this post by the Annoying Librarian (yes, I know that’s not her real fake name). It was at that moment I realized why I loathe her: because I’ve suffered her kith and kin at nearly every library job I’ve ever had.

Which leads into a response I’ve wanted to post for a while about what directors do for a living.

In my last post about my concerns about eBooks and the traditional lending model, a commenter said something I’ve heard many times in different guises: “I think the problem lies in the fact that a lot of librarians and admin don’t really know shit about eBooks. Admin’s role has changed from less about being the guardian of the library to more of a fundraiser/politician role.”

I’m not singling out Justin, but I have wanted to respond to his comment for over a month, and the Netflix-lending posts only fueled my desire to do so.

If I have to point to my professionally challenges for the year ahead, it is all about fundraising and politics. I realize it’s awfully cute that I work in such a small library that I end up washing dishes, hanging pictures, and (teeth gritted) cataloging books.  I  am also tech-savvy enough that my staff don’t have to get out the flannel board and hand puppets to have a conversation with me about eBooks, and I bet that is a relief to them. (Though we are also fortunate to have a true geek on board in charge of library systems–an unusually strong resource for a tiny library–and we are also all tech-literate, which is no coincidence, either.)

But I don’t have a list posted to my wall about the tech issues I need to grasp over the next year. Instead, my wall features my professional goals, blown up in type large enough to read from my desk, and they are all related to my “fundraiser/political role.”  In fact, looking over the last 14 months, and at the year ahead, all of my successes, my challenges, and my successes-in-progress directly relate to that role. It’s my job, the one I was hired to do.

Our biggest challenge in libraries right now is about how we position ourselves within the stakeholder/funding process, and much of that has to do with strategic communications. I strive for this not only through direction (I have a strategic-communications document, though that’s an understatement, because nearly everything I have done in the past year relates back to how we communicate) but also, I hope, through example. I recently faced a daunting challenge that for a while had me very frustrated. But I chose to face this challenge with a positive face forward every single day, to stay on message and upbeat, and to turn it into a win for the library.

My director peers who don’t entirely understand eBooks can be forgiven. They have a daunting job these days: to keep libraries positioned.

I realize not all admins are approachable, have an interest in information technology, or want to know. But if there’s something absolutely crucial your “admin” needs to know, you have a responsibility to make every effort to find a way to share this knowledge with them. If the “admins” don’t know “shit” about eBooks, it’s the job of those who do to find a way to communicate crucial facts to them: just what they need to know, and no more than that, and in a manner in which the information can be quickly absorbed.

So now, back to Hayward Public Library. Here we have a director trying something new, and then being transparent that it hasn’t worked out yet.  I found it interesting that this story made Library Journal at all (slow week?), but at that point it was inevitable that AL would begin shouting.

If there’s one thing writing has taught me, it is that shitty first drafts are a necessary part of the process, and that second, third, and fourth drafts aren’t much better. In fact, as a writer, I have to bite back the snark when someone says, “Oh yes, I’ve been meaning to write a story one of these days,” as if good literature were something banged out in a single session on a stray weekend afternoon, and not something extracted through exhausting, nausea-generating iterations (cue Jack Nicholson in The Shining, typing the same sentence over and over and OVER).  It’s understandable; excellence appears effortlessness.

But excellence also requires much behind-scenes sausagemaking and experimentation. This is particularly true for new ideas. It is extremely hard to distinguish good ideas from bad ideas early in the iterative design process (and that goes for everything from writing and homebrewing to designing library buildings). Sometimes the goal is right, but the method needs rethinking. Sometimes the goal itself needs rethinking. And sometimes a good idea just needs time, timing, and tweaking to triumph. You will just not know until you’ve put some effort into it for a while.

It can be heartbreaking to walk away from an idea you’ve poured work into, but it’s part of the process. The significantly harder part of any idea is believing in it before it’s fully-baked, when the effort to make it happen outstrips the apparent payoff, and you feel the impatience of others, hear the negative voices, sniff the faint odor of doubt. That’s the point where you need to have faith in things unseen.

But none of this bothers the Annoying Librarian, because she’s all about the turd in the punch bowl, the preemptive negativism, the soul-sucking, nasty worldview in which no good deed goes unpunished and They are always against Us. It’s a convenient, lazy perch, particularly when you do it behind the lack of accountability that  anonymity provides. It’s good for page views and quick laughs at the expense of whatever idea she’s excoriating at the moment. But it doesn’t make the world a better place. It doesn’t make you a better person, either.

I forced myself to view the Annoying Librarian’s site once more before ending this post, and she’s true to form: there she is saying “I hate to say I told you so.” The facts don’t matter; it’s just another instance where she correlates something she doesn’t like with failure, however tenuous the connection.

Thing is, AL doesn’t hate to say she told us so, not one bit (any more than anyone using that expression feels that way). Like the Dementors, she keens for the moment of destruction; she loves failure more than the creative spark of life itself.  Devil’s advocate? She’s his liege.

I don’t know if Hayward has found the right solution yet. But they tried something new, were up front about it, and are clearly interested in positioning the library for the future. The director seems less interested in the mechanics of this particular approach than addressing the root problems that led to this experiment.

He’s on his game. I’m trying to be on mine. You do your part, too, whether it’s reaching a little harder to explain to your boss about eBooks, thinking twice before you make that negative comment or laugh at a cheap shot, or forcing yourself to go into your next meeting with the most positive spin on things you can muster (you may be surprised at how good you feel when you do this). We have a lot of work to do, those of us who care fiercely about libraries, and we need all the help–and faith–we can get.

Scilken’s Law and the Future of Libraries

Beautiful books, New Orleans city archives

Beautiful books, New Orleans city archives

Last week I briefly stuck my finger into a discussion about the future of libraries initially launched by Jason Perlow of ZDNet. Then I got busy with work and personal writing deadlines and pulled my finger back out.

However, half of what I would have said was summed rather tidily in an anonymous comment on Jason’s follow-up mea-culpa, libraries-are-wonderful post (featuring a 50-minute [!] video about the Darien Library). Snark Snark wrote:

Why are all the Eggheads missing the point here? The discussion shouldn’t be about trying to justify intellectually the role of Librarians and Libraries as an overall concept. We get it–they both rule (and are wild continued successes in many places). Instead we should remember that title. Physical books will go away eventually because they won’t be economically viable to print in smaller numbers. Economically disadvantaged communities, without the “cushion” of advanced libraries with Internet Kiosks, public meeting spaces and other rich-folk goodies will be faced with less books, and eventually a realization that they’re maintaining an increasingly empty building. It may take a long time, but it will happen. And those “poor” libraries will close, while the “rich” ones thrive and diversify.

Yes, and physical books will go away because fair use is an inconvenient obstacle to maximizing publishing revenue (which makes publishers wealthier, but will not improve the lot of writers). The electronic format of ebooks represents the ultimate bonanza for publishers: the ability to insert a tollbooth in front of every reading transaction. Technology is now catching up to this dream, and this is the decade of the second big shift (the first happened with journals and was really over by the fin de siecle).

Jason, in his original post, before he was fed the Library Kool-Aid, came very close to echoing Scilken’s Law (authored by Marvin Scilken, a library leader who among other gifts to the profession almost single-handedly pushed forward an investigation of publisher price-fixing): “If the service in question was the only service offered, could the library get local tax dollars to do it?”  The answer for everything except book-lending is “not likely.”

The public library is built around the book-lending model, and only luxury-home communities such as Darien will want to justify public libraries on the scale we knew them in the 20th century, as a kind of trompe l’oeil to underscore their cultural creds. The other communities? They will fund police, fire, and the town square. Those humongous edifices filled largely with paper-based anachronisms may not be torn down anytime soon (though I’m sure ebook providers lick their chops over the idea of monopolistic control of consumption), but the service providers–we library workers–will be reduced to skeleton crews.

This is not to say that the other things public libraries do are unimportant. We who believe in libraries believe wholeheartedly in these services, and we’re on the right side of that argument. But, as Marvin was pointing out, the middle-class public’s love for reading and books has helped us provide the other services; we squeeze them in and around our popular role, book-lending.

(Reading that interview today almost chills me; I wrote back then, “even I—a militant Cyber-booster—can’t see a community funding an Internet-only public library.”)

I haven’t said much about Andy Woodworth’s responses to Jason’s original post. The barycenter of his argument is that “libraries will not close so long as there is a digital divide,” but he begins his post by acknowledging that public libraries now face dire funding cuts, and concludes his article by pointing to  the Posh Spice of public libraries, an outlier that will likely be the Last Public Library Standing.

(The other response to Jason’s post, which posits the future of libraries in a kind of vague partnership with other equally-threatened services,  begins with an effusive account of a library run by a PhD for a “ridiculously small salary.” In other words, we just love, love our libraries as long as we don’t have to actually pay for them.)

My response to Andy is that no matter what we wish for, a public service that no longer serves the needs of the middle class, once reduced or eliminated, will rarely return. The public’s mood these days suits the DRM model perfectly: a book for me, but none for thee. They aren’t going to go to bat for either fair use or public libraries, and that leaves the advocacy for both pretty much to us.

So the other reason fair use will go away is because we let that happen. In less than a decade we can allow malaise and failure to take action to undo an honorable practice that began at the dawn of the written word. We will be the lesser for it.

I know there has been discussion about stopping the train in its tracks. I don’t know if that’s possible at this point, but I do know that we need intelligent, hard-hitting leadership to at least fight the good fight, and if I were not running a tiny university library with 4 library workers and a handful of students (and if I hadn’t set my cap on leading this library toward several significant renovations), I’d run for ALA President on this platform and make it the sole focus of my presidency.

One Year Anniversary

October 30 was the anniversary of my first day at my then-new job. As I commented over on the ACRL blog (in an guest article about faculty status for librarians), I haven’t been this happy in a job in a long time.

What makes me happy?

A values-driven institution. My uni may not have a barrel of money, but it has a lot of soul. The vast majority of people who work there in any capacity are there because they believe in what they’re doing. The faculty, students, and staff truly believe in their institution. It is impossible to overstate how important that environment is to me.

A great boss. She’s supportive, insightful, interesting, and helpful. She will tell me when to rethink something and provides great feedback for my questions and contexts for my decisions, but lets me run the library. That’s a great balance and a good model for my own management.

Campus support for our goals. I stumbled across a slideset from last December and was delighted to see that we had met every goal set back then — goals focused on making the library more welcoming, safer, and more service-oriented. But other services on campus were crucial to this achievement. Departments such as campus services extended themselves to help us make the library a better place for everyone.

A great team. That’s been in development all year, first to fill a temporary position and then to upgrade a position. I can’t think of another library that can claim a team like ours. Everyone is smart, techno-literate, dedicated to the mission, and full of win. We all work too hard and don’t quite get everything done (there’s 4.5 of us, after all, not counting student workers), but we’re awfully good at what we do.

The sense that I’m part of something larger than myself. This may always have been true at other jobs, but I haven’t always believed it or felt it. It’s palpable here. That no doubt loops back to working at a values-driven institution.

Me. I make me happy. I know some of you are  thinking I’m sitting here with a nitrous oxide canister, but I made a promise to myself when I started this job that no matter what baggage or burden I have in my life, work-related or personal, when I walk into this library every morning I would be upbeat and positive, and treat each day as what it is: a gift. I am grateful for this chance to return home. I am grateful for a good, interesting, significant job. I am grateful for health and challenge and having eucalyptus trees right outside my office. I am grateful to work around so many wonderful people. So my gift back for this gratitude is to frame each day as positively as I can.

Wait, I Could Have Had a Sinecure?

Imagine, all this time I’ve been working my behind off in library jobs, and I could have spent it reclining on a chaise-lounge reading fat novels? Or so says LSSI, the library-outsourcing company, in a deliciously slurpy quote for the New York Times:

“A lot of libraries are atrocious,” Mr. Pezzanite said. “Their policies are all about job security. That’s why the profession is nervous about us. You can go to a library for 35 years and never have to do anything and then have your retirement. We’re not running our company that way. You come to us, you’re going to have to work.”

Once upon a time I was an outsourced librarian (for the EPA), which meant this: I was paid much less than the federal employees, my benefits were not as good as theirs, and my “supervisor” was some wahoo several states over who had most recently supervised clerks at Toys ‘R’ Us. It was never about anything other than saving the feds a few bucks, which became painfully but at least publicly evident when the EPA libraries were threatened with closure.

I worked hard there, and I “have [had] to work” at nearly every other library I’ve worked at for two decades. Where I work now, we work full-tilt all fall, then do projects over the winter break, then work-work-work all spring, and then catch up on projects all summer. I typically get to work before 7:30 and I’m usually there at least til 5, and I’m in earlier and stay later as needed, and I drag work home. The library is hardly alone in this level of work effort; it’s just typical of our campus. We do great work, and then we get up the next day and do more of it.

God forbid I ever encounter (or have to work for) a Pezzanite. Among other things, you have to be some kind of cad to generalize an entire profession to the Times so boastfully.

I could go on, but you know what? It’s already 5:30 a.m., and I need to get a move on — the day ticks away as I write.

USAA, MasterCard, Avis, the Bill Collector, and Moi

In the end, I don’t think I “lost” or “won.” USAA was very nice to me, and I even got a nice letter and phone call from MasterCard. Avis pretended to be in the cloakroom the whole time.

Probably the best moment (if a year of wandering in the bureaucratic gulag has best moments) was at the end of all of a long phone call when the USAA person thanked me for my military service. I was a Cold War Warrior during a period of relative prosperity, which means that there wasn’t anyone greeting us at airports when we came home from our peacetime tours. We were just the folks who went into the military and spent years humping 12-hour shifts under harsh working conditions while everyone back home was busy being disco-cool. So I got a little lump in my throat when he thanked me for my service.

I have no complaints, and believe the Air Force made me who I am today, but only those of us who have served–even in peacetime–really understand what it means to serve, maybe even more so when nobody is paying attention. I didn’t serve so that someone would thank me for it, but I appreciate it all the same.

USAA also credited me the difference ($141) between my deductible and the total insurance amount, which was a very nice gesture. They did this after I advised them I wouldn’t be filing a claim, and again, it was unexpected and really rather touching.  It did make me realize that if the damage to the rental car had been much greater, this whole situation would have been much messier, because by exercising my right to use Mastercard coverage, the credit card company, not USAA, was my insurance company for the incident. Though perhaps if I had totaled the car I might have been advised much earlier that because I used a coupon for some of the cost of renting the car, the Mastercard coverage wasn’t in effect.

(Good to know that, though a year is a long time to find that out.)

USAA also advised me that the ominous collection notice was just a bill, which I promptly paid. If this shows up on my credit report, I will begin saber-rattling all over again (given that celebrity librarians can command at least 15 minutes of mindshare), but I think I’m OK.

USAA Update

So I’m a little tired tonight and this will be brief, but the Consumerist gave me some web-time, USAA’s social-software team responded, and I had a nice preliminary talk with someone today.

I really only want two things: I want my credit rating cleaned up, and I want this all to stop.

Now, full disclosure, I’d also like to keep all or part of that $641 I have been billed. I am not a tycoon librarian and I can use that money. But it’s mostly about my damaged credit rating and the protracted pain and suffering.

For those who wanted more precision in the details about the coverage, I’m sorry. I have insurance. I dinged a rental car. I was immersed into a claims process. The event happened on a weekend when I was in San Francisco to give a reading and at the last minute suddenly had a job interview, and within weeks of this trip was packing to return to California. So between the car-dinging and this past week, I have had a major household move, a job change, lived in two temporary rentals, found a place to live in SF, taken over a library that needed a lot of TLC, had a parent die (with a protracted memorial event that took place 90 days later, during my university’s fall orientation), and so on. So at some point I went into a mode where I would get another claims letter (for a while they were the only people writing me so it felt a lot like personal mail…hey, here’s my old friend Mastercard Claims again!) and I would again send in the same stuff they had asked for previously and then I would resume whatever I was doing to manage this major life change.

Anyhoo, it was good to hear from USAA. They wanted to know why I hadn’t told them earlier I was having problems, and I guess my answer would be because I didn’t know I was having problems. A slow claims process is a slow claims process. To have it suddenly terminate in a claims denial and a collections notice was the problem.

Dear USAA, Mastercard, and Bill Collector…

Or as I think of you at the moment, Larry, Moe, and Curly…

Yes, I will immediately send $641 to the collection agency to settle my “debt.” But in the meantime I will use my bully pulpit to vent about a year of being jerked around.

First of all, I have a great credit rating and plan to keep it that way, which is why that I am just paying up. I consider myself wronged, but I preen over my credit rating and will not let the Three Stooges sully it.

Second, this is to you, USAA: if you are going to have a credit card that offers insurance coverage for rental cars, then make sure it’s a real service. Because the day I rented that car from Avis, a year ago, I called and asked, and was assured, yes, I would be covered. I trusted you as I have trusted you since 1985,  when I was a second lieutenant with a used Pontiac Fiero (bad judgment on my part, but I digress).

In fact, I was dorked around for a year, and then last week received a collection-company notice (without having ever seen an actual bill), and then received a notice that my claim was denied (read on about that), and then received a second collection-agency notice, as if I were some scalawag and not someone who pays bills on time quite assiduously.

Third, Mastercard, thank you to the anonymous person who warned me back in September 2009, after I dinked my rental car and naively sent in the paperwork, thinking that hey, I’m covered, that the process would be much longer than I anticipated. Whoever you are, you spoke truth to justice. My only comment is that you prolonged hope where I should have had none.

Fourth, Mastercard, you win. I sent in the same paperwork over and over and over and over and OVER again for a year, and every time asked for a confirmation that it was received, only to hear deafening silence, and then would get another request for the same information. I spent way over $641 in personal time repeatedly sending you the same material. After a while I began to wonder if you expected to wear me down or if I would lose this information and give up. I never gave up, not until you sent a message — AFTER I had been contacted by a bill collector! — that my claim was denied.

Why was my claim denied? You pointed (last week! After I received the collection notice!) to an arcane rule that because I had used a coupon to rent the car, I wasn’t entitled to a credit, even though I had upgraded the car so in theory it wasn’t free… and I had used my Mastercard… but never mind. You had an entire freaking year to offer me your lame excuse.

I never got an opportunity to just pay Avis the $500. I never got that bill. My experience went from paperwork nightmare to Criminal Consumer.

Mastercard, you plastic Satan, I will take that credit card and violate all local environmental laws to burn it on our deck in full view of God and San Francisco.

USAA, I wrote and called to ask for your help. You are a terrific insurance company. You sell a lot of other financial services. Based on this experience, I plan to avoid anything you sell unrelated to insurance, and when it’s appropriate, I’ll divest myself of your credit cards (which for the record I clear off every month). The left hand clearly doesn’t know what the right hand is doing.

Collection agency, I don’t know who is doing your mail-merge, but mailing me twice in a week, the second time to threaten me, “We do not understand your lack of attention in this matter,” feels a little OCD. I realize your office is “prepared to proceed with further collection in this matter,” but at least let me get out my checkbook. Because at this point I will be thrilled to make all of this go away.

USAA, I also don’t understand why I am being billed for more than my deductible. It’s not that much more, so perhaps I should just pay it and keep blogging about how unhappy I am with your credit card services.  Since I can’t get a clear answer via email or telephone on any of this from any of the companies making my life miserable, if you have a response, please use the comment field below.

Hey, Avis, I don’t fault you one bit. I do ask that you understand that I wasn’t trying not to pay you. I was just taking advantage of a “card member benefit” that turned into a nightmare. I’ll know better next time and either pay extra for full coverage or not bother with a “benefit.” Or I won’t go for the $99 upgrade on a “free” car and that will mean I get the smaller car I don’t scrape when I pull into a very small garage on Lombard Street.