Saul Amdersky’s “The Case for Consolidation” argues that while local government institutions were initially meant to put more political power in the hands of the people, they are actually used as oppressive tools by those already in power. The excessive number of public libraries fit into this picture by sucking up community resources, differing in quality across communities contributing to the quality of life of the wealthy and keeping the poor poor and comparatively ignorant. Amdersky makes an interesting case, but not a fully developed one. First, he calls for a nation-wide standard among public libraries in terms of the services and resources offered. At first, it sounds as though this would place communities on a more equal footing, but it would put many at a disadvantage. B. Hodge’s and R. Tanner’s “Grassroots to Grassfed,” an article discussing a library’s efforts to collaborate with and tailor its resources to the farming community it served, showed how public libraries best serve their populations when they are not forced to conform to a state or national standard. Second, Amdersky’s suggestion that public libraries consolidate and eliminate branches would also be disadvantageous and inconvenient for many people. To use his example of Kalamazoo County, MI, I doubt that consolidating 12 libraries over 562 square miles would work well in practice for the citizens of Kalamazoo. Many people would have to drive a long way before finding a library, library usage would go down, and the remaining libraries would eventually be forced to close. My last issue with Admansky’s article is that it blames too many problems on the government. I’m not the biggest fan of the government, but not everything (such as people’s racist attitudes or an economic slump) is its fault.
"The Economic Impact of Libraries in Indiana"
The Indiana Business Research Center’s “The Economic Impact of Libraries in Indiana” was the antithesis of Amdersky’s article. It reported on the direct and indirect economic impact of Indiana’s many public libraries, essentially concluding that the proliferation of public libraries provides jobs and millions of dollars worth of benefits to the public. Furthermore, the public gets more economic value out of libraries than it puts into it. First, this report is a god-send. I hope that its findings were widely published; if more people understood how economically beneficial public libraries were, the issue of public libraries’ survival would be solved. Second, the report brought up an interesting issue. Because it was published by the Kelley School of Business, it was clearly written with a bias towards the business community. However, the report’s suggestion that public libraries cater more to the business community and community leaders seems to undermine the mission of the public library. Local business people are, of course, part of the public and I think that publicizing the library’s business resources is a good suggestion, but the public library is not meant to be an elitist institution. On the other hand however, catering more to the needs of local business and community leaders could partially solve the library’s need for third party funding as discussed last week.
"Indiana Tax Cuts Hurt PLs"
Lynn Blumenstein’s “Indiana Tax Cuts Hurt PLs” briefly discussed the impact of property tax caps and other tax cuts on Indiana public libraries. While the article stated nothing new, it was a reminder of how dependent public libraries are on tax revenue, and how tax revenue can only go so far. It lends some credence to Amdersky’s argument that public libraries need to reorganize themselves into independent entities that do not rely largely on tax dollars or federal funding derived from tax dollars. It also emphasized the need for public libraries to form partnerships and find third party funding as discussed in last week’s class.
Indiana Public Library Certification Manual
The Indiana Public Library Certification Manual simply laid out the guidelines for public library certification in Indiana. First, I had a question that the last section of the manual partly addressed, but didn’t get really in-depth with. According to the manual, people need to maintain their certification by getting LEU credits even if they are not currently working as librarians. What if you are unable to get enough LEUs over a 5 year period because you were too busy with another job, or you chose to take time off work to stay home with your kids? Would you then be forced to take a lower certification upon re-entering the field or could you just pick up where you left off? I also found it interesting that state funding is cut for libraries whose librarians fail to pick up enough LEU credits. Not only does it show that the state must be desperate to save money in the face of an increased demand for library funding due to decreased property taxes, but it also goes along with Amdersky’s argument that there is too much governmental control over local public institutions.
I agree with you that Amdersky's article was not fully-developed. Many of his arguments were confusing and not very well thought out. I especially agree with you about closing branches. He doesn't seem to care that by closing the smaller branches people in the smaller communities won't be served as well.
ReplyDelete