Weekly Readings 4/17

The Case for Consolidation by Saul Amdursky

The author advocates for moving away from the antiquated funding and governing system used by most public libraries in favor of independently funded and managed consolidated systems.

I have mixed feelings about Amdursky's proposal. On one hand, I understand his argument that it allows tax payers more decision and that it can make librarians even more conscious of the reasons behind their organizational decisions. However, is this what librarians should be concerned with non-stop? General stewardship with public funds is good, but should librarians need to be even more entrenched in fighting for tax levies and worried about the lack of a safety net in local government? He also makes a pretty sweeping assumption that in making libraries independent, the same level of public trust would be maintained. I'm not saying it would definitely diminish, but it is a possibility in the long-term, which would leave even more libraries closing when tax payers are their most fickle (I cite the Dempsey article from earlier in the semester).

I found an editoral by John Berry, editor-in-chief of LJ when this was written, in which he argues against Amdursky's proposal. He states that while there are libraries that have become independent taxing districts and "have done well financially, many librares that are departments of municipal, county, or even state governments have done equally well or better" (Berry). He instead advocates for "finding another revenue source to replace the property tax base." His first citation is Ohio, where libraries did well after changing their funding structure to a percentage of the income tax. He also mentioned Chicago and San Diego, which made their support a percentage of the cost of all government. Again, recognizing that libraries deserve a percentage of some total (income or expenditures) seems to help make income a little more stable. This points to a definite need for states to look at their current funding structures, but there are many changes that could be made before making the ultimate leap into independence.

Berry, John N. "Editorial: Library Users Should Govern." Library Journal 129.21 Feb. (2004). Web. 14 Apr. 2012. .


Indiana Tax Cuts Hurt PLs by Lynn Blumenstein

Blumenstein gives a small write-up about the impact on libraries due to the change in Indiana's property tax revenue.

This article is a good example of why libraries should reassess their funding structure to find the best (or at least a better) one, which is the heart of Amdursky's article. As it stands, Indiana's libraries are at the complete mercy of state legislatures who aren't likely to consider what capping property taxes will do to individual libraries. While Ohio, San Diego, and Chicago libraries are also at the mercies of legislatures, having an entire percentage of income/expenditures makes them specifically target libraries for cuts. This did happen in Ohio two years ago, when the percentage went down over 30%, so it does not offer immunity. Yet when you are relying on the public, is there a truly "safe" revenue source? Should libraries expect not to have fluctuations? While I am not personally a fan of unions, it seems to me that in many instances libraries are being overlooked in favor of their unionized counterparts (police, fire, teachers, etc.). The only thing I know for sure at this point in my career is that I have nowhere near the knowledge necessary to offer informed suggestions on a solution!


The Economic Impact of Libraries in Indiana

This study examined the hard-to-measure aspects of public libraries in an attempt to assign more tangible results in Indiana.

This study was actually fascinating -- great information and surprisingly readable. It was also nice to end the semester with, since it shows what we have learned throughout this course is real and worth fighting for. However, this summary demonstrates how complicated it is to assign value to libraries. They were thorough in the services they chose to calculate costs for, and seeing the calculations was interesting. For most of them, it seemed as if they were erring on the low side (which allows you to say "at the very least, patrons are getting...") though I was surprised by $10 per reference interaction and didn't see much info on why this figure was chosen. This report was thorough enough that it should be emulated by other states to help their libraries as well.

One interesting thing was their finding that patrons use libraries for business enhancement and genealogy equally, yet libraries are more likely to focus on genealogy qualifications. MCPL has done a good job meeting this need in the Indiana Room, offering a lot of business and grant-writing support. This theme of business support continued through many of their recommendations, which made me wonder if the results weren't a little unconsciously skewed since it was a business school authoring the study. Outreach to businesses makes sense, though, especially in connection with what Mr. Zoss was saying last week about forging relationships for future benefit. I also liked their recommendations for each library to develop a benefit-cost analysis (even though it means more work) and using that information to aggressively promote their significance. This would be especially true if districts ever did becoming finance independently. In all areas, libraries need to be even more proactive in the future. I'm not sure how much I agree with finding people from out of town to survey, since it seems like most libraries don't claim to have much of a role in tourism (which the exception of places like the genealogy collection in Ft. Wayne). I think it is more important to focus on touting and strengthening services for local individuals.