April 17

Amdursky, S. (2004). The Case for Consolidation.

Amdursky’s article was interesting to me mostly because it readdressed the question of libraries being responsible to the government or to their community.  It brought me back to the question that bothered me most about our class discussion on pornography in the library, which was: do you strive to meet the wants and needs of your community most, or do you strive to adhere to a set of standards decided on a more academic level (or governmental)?

What I took away from this article was that Amdursky intended to better serve smaller communities’ needs, but not necessarily their wants.  By dropping the “dead weight” libraries in an area and consolidating with larger libraries, he believes that we can reduce cost.  He brings up what he calls “tough questions” among which are the ideas that libraries will become no better than the rigorously standardized Barnes and Noble (shudder), and also that librarians will have to give up their titles, jobs and even buildings (oh is that all?).  I think any librarian would probably pause at that long list of heavy cuts.

In some ways I agree that we have too many libraries serving the same areas, when fewer could do it better.  In Des Moines, I can go to Urbandale Library (2 branches), Des Moines Public (6 branches), West Des Moines, Clive, and a few other tiny ones without driving more than half an hour.  They all have different cards and different rules.  What exactly is the point of that?  In the end I always go to Des Moines Public, because it has the most selection.  Wouldn’t it be better if all these buildings still existed under a uniform or open source system?  But then, that alone doesn’t save much money.  Some people would have to lose the buildings in their area, which would disproportionately affect those living in poverty and/or those without transportation.

Overall, I was confused a bit by what exactly Amdursky was suggesting we do as far as the shift to local tax responsibility.  I didn’t think he addressed how to actually SOLVE the tough questions he brought up.  How would we avoid falling into the trap of local bias?  What about those living in poverty who would lose their branches?

Blumenstein, L. (2008). Indiana Tax Cuts Hurt PLs.

This article made me think of the budget cut assignment we worked on earlier in the semester, and what drastic sacrifices we were forced to make as far as collection, hours, and staff.  This is yet another example of how the loss of budget from income tax, have forced libraries to cut hours and services in reality.

 In previous class discussions, we talked about how patrons would prefer 24-hour libraries and don’t even know about many (if not most) of the services we offer.  I fear that they won’t even know what they are missing if budgets continue to shrink.

Libraries are now expected to do more with much, much less, which is only possible for so long.  For this reason, the partnerships and fundraising we discussed recently in class will become a possible safety net.