The State Librarian's Advisory Committee has engaged in a thoughtful and productive discussion to develop ideas about how State Aid to Public Libraries funds can be distributed and utilized to ensure enhanced library service to Michigan's residents in the most efficient, most cost-effective, and most equitable manner.
While the results of their work have been taken into consideration and truly inform the model proposed here, please keep in mind that this model finalized for public comment comes directly from me and the Library of Michigan. Also, remember that this is not the final model for legislation, but rather a vehicle for substantive public comment, both positive and negative, upon which to build the legislation that will eventually ensue.
While the results of their work have been taken into consideration and truly inform the model proposed here, please keep in mind that this model finalized for public comment comes directly from me and the Library of Michigan. Also, remember that this is not the final model for legislation, but rather a vehicle for substantive public comment, both positive and negative, upon which to build the legislation that will eventually ensue.
I look forward to seeing and hearing your comments so that we can then move ahead with a new and successful initiative that will result in stronger and more sustainable state aid funding for Michigan's public libraries.
Go to these links to see the proposed model and related explanatory and supporting documents:
State Support of Public Libraries Proposed Model (December 2007)
Brief Explanation of the Proposed Model for State Support of Public Libraries
State Support of Public Libraries: Current Proposal and Invitation to Comment (December 2007) -- Narrative of Advisory Committee Meetings and Process
State Support of Public Libraries: Current Proposal and Invitation to Comment (December 2007) -- Executive Summary
Notes from October 29, 2007 Advisory Committee Meeting
Notes from September 24, 2007 Advisory Committee Meeting
Introductory "Why We Are Here" (From 9/24/07 meeting)
Conversation Recap (Slides Recounting Issues and Ideas Identified Prior to the 9/24/07 meeting)
79 comments:
I'm pleased to see that Cooperatives were still able to exist and the 3 year contract is a good point for budget planning on the Coop and member library sides.
The Statewide services are vital as over the years we have changed our budget priorities based on the databases and now MelCat. I hope one day soon a Statewide library card could be a service, this would truly be a feather in the cap for the lawmakers to say that their residents have full use of the collective tax funded resources across the State!
--Janet Cashin, Bacon Memorial District Library-Wyandotte
As much as I love MeL, I think that another source for funding should be found (perhaps using the "self-sustaining business model" proposed for the co-ops), instead of taking state aid from public libraries and their co-ops.
Where is the formula that would guarantee state aid for public libraries? Who will be the judge of what is cost-effective for such different libraries as DPL and Missaukee County or Helena Township. There are so many unanswered questions that are brought to mind by this model.
I may be the only director out there who thinks this but my patrons have no use for MeL. We do not have students here and Google is easier and appropriate for the needs of my patrons.
I would rather all that funding go for maintaining my cooperative which supplies me with technical support, advice and instruction, workshops, assistance, and group discounts.
I must say that to some extent I agree with CarpLake. In our small library patrons rarely use the Mel databases. There are some great databases in Mel but are they used enough to justify the cost? In our library the Mel databases are not effective or efficient.
In contrast, our patrons use MelCat and benefit from the sharing of resources with other libraries.
Vicki Mazure, Director
Harbor Beach Area District Library
I just spent some time looking over the current proposal for state support of public libraries and it looks fine to me. The advisory committee did an excellent job of focusing in on the important services the state offers public libraries (MeL Databases, MeLCat and MeL Delivery). The State is able to negotiate better prices for the databases than we could as individual libraries. The databases alone saved my library far more than we received in state aid and we now have money to reallocate to other resources. I like the coop option and the temporary subsidy as well as the long-term contracts for coop services. This will allow coops plenty of time to adjust to their new service levels and to re-configure their staffing to meet the needs of those libraries who wish to purchase coop services. Kudos to the Advisory Committee for their great work. I'll be sharing the full proposal, executive summary and flow chart with my library board at our next meeting and will pass their comments on to Nancy.
Please clarify a particular item on the model. What does "*The portion of state aid allocated to these services is designed particularly (although NOT EXCLUSIVELY) for the benefit of public libraries and their patrons) Note- emphasis mine. Not exclusively? This wouldn't be an attempt to circumvent the law that guarantees the purpose of state aid to be for resource sharing, for public libraries. Would it?
Pat Orr
Manager of Library Services,
Dykema PLLC
Detroit
In response to Pat's comment, I would note that nothing in law has suggested or should suggest that expenditures designed to benefit public libraries and their patrons cannot residually benefit other libraries or their users. The expenditure of state aid funds would be based on decisions to enhance support for public libraries and their patrons particularly, but use of those enhanced resources would not be prohibited by Michigan residents utilizing other libraries or accessing resources from home.
Nancy
The last time State Aid act was changed was 30 years ago. Is this, what we want for the next 20+ years.
Major changes in the proposed model from the current State Aid model.
Cooperatives are no longer funded under State Aid after a temporary transition period. Cooperatives would have to reorganize as 501 (c) (3) organization and sell services to libraries.
Libraries would have to sign three year contracts for cooperative services not knowing if State Aid will be funded in future years.
Libraries must use all of their State Aid funding to support only core services activities. They can contract with a cooperative but only for support of core services as listed in the model when using State Aid funding.
There is no limit on what percentage of State Aid the core services could cost in the future.
Libraries would have to complete not only the annual state aid report but also future benchmarks regarding the use of State Aid funds.
I have several questions related to the funding model. How much money is on the table? Do we hope or expect to increase the direct state aid? Will public libraries be held harmless at least? Will the money to pay for "statewide core services" be taken from the current state aid to public libraries? And if the statewide databases are now to be paid for with money traditionally allocated to public libraries, will public libraries choose the databases? Will academic libraries and school libraries be assessed a fee to pay for the databases that benefit their users? Public libraries already lost once when the LSTA money traditionally used to fund grants to public libraries was taken to fund many databases that only have value to academic or school libraries. Will we lose again? I need answers to these questions before I can decide if the new funding model will be beneficial to this library.
If we are looking for a state aid model that can be explained simply to the legislature, why not require the state aid money be used to purchase books and other materials for library collections? I realize this is not as sexy or exciting as technology, but the vast majority of people (including our legislators) associate libraries with books first and foremost, and supplying books and other materials to the public will be part of our mission for the forseeable future. This is simple, easy to understand, measurable (by collection growth and circulation increases), and the benefit to the local communities is obvious.
Currently our reciprocal borrowing agreements are based on coop membership and are part of the coop plan; if coop membership becomes voluntary, will those borrowing agreements have to be negotiated individually with each neighboring library that no longer belongs to the cooperative? The possibility of a statewide library card at some point in the future does not replace the need for reciprocal borrowing agreements today.
Celia Morse
Berkley Public Library
I find it interesting that there were no trustees from around the state inlcuded in the discussion process...or did I miss something.
Overall, I think the proposal is a reasonable plan.
I agree with Celia that the easiest thing to get legislative support for would probably be for money which would go directly to public libraries for books.
I assume that the reason this isn't an option the State Library would consider is that the State Library already has two major projects underway (MeL Databases and MeLCat) for which it needs to find more stable funding.
Of these two projects, MeLCat is the more valuable for our library. We are not yet participating, but look forward to doing so and feel certain that usage will be heavy among our patrons. We have suspended ILL services at our library until we are able to join MeLCat.
While we use the MeL Databases at times, I also am not sure that our usage is significant. Still, I would concede that the State Library would be in a better position to determine if the MeL Databases are a cost efficient use of our money when considering usage statewide.
On the issue of cooperatives - I am pleased to see that Coops which can provide cost efficient services for thier members will still be able to exist. I am equally pleased to see that Coops that are not able to provide cost efficient services will cease to exist. I have never felt that our coop provided services which were equal to the amount of money provided to them. When they (SMLC) recently stopped providing services it did not present a significant problem for our library. The only issue it presented was the loss of the union catalog which we relied on for ILL. We are looking to MeLCat to resolve that issue in the coming year. I feel strongly that our library will be in a better position keeping the money we provided to the Coop.
Nancy Studebaker
Director, Niles District Library
Nancy, As the director of a small/rural library, I need to know the "bottom line"? How much of State Aid will be used to fund the "core services" as you describe them in the proposal. Will there be any State Aid funds paid directly to public libraries for their individual operations? Please claify. Thank You, James M. Rancilio, Bullard Sanford Memorial Library, Vassar, MI
I appreciate all the time and consideration that has gone into this plan. It is important that we look to the future and find ways to better serve the public with ever-decreasing funding.
I agree that MelCat, Mel databases and delivery services are crucial to the success of public libraries in Michigan today.
I do have some questions that I hope you will answer: What percent of our current state aid allotment would go toward funding the core services administered by the State? What contingencies are in place should state aid to libraries be discontinued? How long will library cooperatives be given transition monies? Most public libraries in the state are small, rural libraries that depend on their cooperatives for affordable training,, consulting, and purchasing of hardware, software and even basic supplies. Cooperative services are crucial to these libraries
I would love to see more libraries participate in this important discussion.
Colleen Verge
Director
Albion District Library
I have just reviewed the proposal and think it is quite workable for all types and sizes of libraries. Not only does it focus on high level library services such as databases and inter loan it allows for a coop option with subsidy for those libraries that depend on them. Having worked for most of my career in a small rural library, I understand that equity is an important issue. I feel the advisory committee with Nancy's leadership has done a great job of developing a plan that meets various levels of needs. Additionally I understand the need to present a plan that the legislators can understand. Libraries today are quite complex, to continue to develop a simple easy to understand solution is not necessarily in the long term best interest of libraries. We need to educate, educate , educate.
This proposal does not help small libraries. It is not worth the small amount of state aid we receive to bother jumping thru all these hoops. Perhaps our state librarian needs to work for the good of ALL libraries.
I agree with Jane - there are a lot of hoops to jump through for $350. Small rural libraries need practical support, not MeL and not delivery systems that aren't available to us here in the remote western U.P.
Hello,
We've received a question about why comments are being moderated on this blog.
Comments are moderated to ensure against spam and foul language, not to moderate ideas. No comment has been rejected based on subject matter nor does State Librarian Nancy Robertson anticipate rejecting a comment based on subject matter. This is a professional blog intended to elicit comments from the library community; the purpose of this blog is establish a forum for feedback, both positive and negative. Thank you for providing a moment to discuss comment moderation.
Sonya Schryer Norris
Blog Moderator
Library of Michigan Web Site Administrator
I'm not clear if future state aid funding for these core services to be provided by contract to local libraries, are fixed at a certain level or if they will adjusted based on inflation? If state aid can be adjusted, who can say it won't go down? Just look at the state revenue prospects for 2008. I suspect it will have a negetive impact.
Ron
I appreciate all the effort that has gone into the proposal offered for comments. I hope a period of 60-90 days will be allowed to gather comments since I will want to solicit input from my Board of Trustees. It will be important to have grass roots support for any forthcoming legislation designed to change the allocation of State Aid for Public Libraries and I am certain that my Board members will want to have an informed opinion before they advocate a position with our local legislators.
Another concern I have is that centering the majority of the state aid funding for core services with the Library of Michigan might put us at risk of political whims. A new governor, new legislature, etc. may choose to "redo" the HAL and to dilute the staffing at the LoM so that management of core service delivery becomes impossible given the available staff. One need only look at recent hiring freezes and delays in filling open positions to become concerned. Dividing up the functions and involving non-state agencies seems more workable to me.
I hope to hear more comments and opinions from colleagues across our State. Let's keep those citizens of Michigan well-served regardless of library class size!
I agree there needs to be accountability from Michigan's Library
cooperatives regarding use and spending of hard gotten state aid, but I
find Mrs. Robertson's "model" too far in the extreme the other way. The
Library of Michigan should be working on the premise that every library in
the state counts-small or large. That the services those libraries provide
to their communities are not one size fits all services. Imagine that the
Library of Michigan could or would dictate what every single one of
Michigan's libraries needs is a managed link to Mel, MelCat or another of
the vague "five eligible core services" [that suspiciously all seem to lead
to MEL].
Should the Library of Michigan dictate what "needs" are most important to
all of Michigan's' libraries? No.
Should Coops receiving state aid meant to provide services to their member
libraries be accountable --insuring that state aid is indeed spent on
services that benefits all of it's members? Yes.
Should Coops be dismissed in Mrs. Robertson's new "model"? No.
Cooperatives should and do work on behalf of many member libraries-- some
too small to negotiate contracts or provide services they could not afford
on their own. Cooperatives broker consortia services such as shared
automated systems, telecommunications, internet, computer purchasing, book
purchasing --allowing even the smallest of libraries to offer services it
might not be able to offer to it's community otherwise. Additionally,
cooperatives provide training on a variety of subjects, offer support for
cataloging, Interlibrary Loan, consulting expertise, all to benefit of the
many not just the few.
Mrs. Robertson's "model" seems narrow minded at best. It seems to place
all of Michigan's libraries eggs into one basket-MEL. While MEL has it's
place, it cannot and is not all things to all libraries and it should be a
choice not a dictate from the Library of Michigan that all participate or
else. If anything, narrowing these "five core services" to only anything
that has to do with MEL serves to punish any library that cannot (or won't)
participate. Mrs. Robertson offers no explanation of how these "core
services" benefit all of Michigan's libraries; indeed, she has left these
"core services" so vague except to say that Cooperatives would not be one
of them.
She is our Library advocate, yet how can she, in good conscience, support
such a model that clearly does not support all of Michigan's libraries?
I encourage Mrs. Robertson to rethink her suggested model and listen to the
libraries need for "cooperation". Benefits to our libraries are enormous
when we all work together to insure equity and fairness throughout the
state. Balance works when all libraries are given the opportunity to have a
voice in what their communities need or want from their local libraries.
Joanne Whitley
906 W. Bluff St.
Marquette, Michigan 49855
We are a small class 1 library and since we have implemented MeL our system has been swamped by our patrons. THEY LOVE IT! Since we are a small library we are limited on how many books we are able to purchase and having MeL opens up everything for our patrons.
Why do I feel that the smaller libraries are basically getting swept under the rug? Nancy you need to become aware of how important the smaller libraries are to the heart of Michigan and try to help us also.
In my opinion, the current proposal will only further divide public library advocates and not solve the real problem in public library service in our state.
Isn't the bottom line here really about providing equitable library services to patrons all across Michigan?
Why squabble over these pennies? Why not do what really needs to be done with a model we all can get behind?
If we are going to re-work state funding for public libraries, why not ask our citizens to invest in a model that will help provide the realistic amount of dollars that libraries need to provide equitable services to our patrons?
Fact: State Aid funding levels to public libraries and cooperatives have been minimal at best (the word "joke" also comes to mind).
Minimal State funding to co-ops has limited them to only being able to help many small public libraries to just "get by". God bless 'em, and no offense meant to the people running our very small public libraries, but let's not pretend that those very small libraries are providing the same level of services that better funded libraries provide.
Let's be clear: the current proposal will kill or seriously injure library co-ops and small public libraries. Is that what we want?
If it is, we must replace them with something viable.
Instead fighting with each other and watching those slow, painful deaths, why not promote a proactive model that provides incentives and financial support to communities to provide solid levels of library services to all our citizens?
Throw out PA 89? YES!
Use the current proposal? NO!
Let's all work together for solid library services for all the people of Michigan.
Jim Curtis
Portage Lake District Library
Houghton, MI
The Executive Summary of the Current Proposal, Point One states that "The model for State Aid to public libraries...created...1977, has not worked effectively for years, has not been funded as intended, and has not utilitzed the funding available to the maximum efficiency".
How was this conclusion reached? By what method of measurement was it determined that the model has not worked effectively for years- and by how many years? By what measurement was it determined that funding has not been utilized to the maximum efficiency?
Pat Orr
Manager of Library Services
Dykema, PLLC
Detroit MI
Thirty-two members of Woodlands Library Cooperative, representing 718,000 citizens of the State of Michigan, met on Thursday, January 10, 2008 to discuss the proposed State Support of Public Libraries model you posted for review. The members expressed their appreciation for your leadership in bringing forth the need to find a stable model of support for the MEL databases and MeLCat besides relying on LSTA monies. However, the proposed model was not supported by 31 of the members for the following reasons:
1. It does not address the equity issue of who pays for the services (currently the majority of the MEL databases relate to academic and not public libraries).
2. The proposal sets no limit to the amount of state aid monies that will be consumed by the statewide core services vs what goes directly to the libraries.
3. Library cooperatives were not included as part of the core services.
4. Any change to PA89 must address the funding to reflect current costs and an inflation factor.
5. If your intent was to make a simple model to explain to the legislature, we do not believe that this model is simple or easy to explain.
The members then reviewed a funding model proposed by ten of the cooperative directors. 31 members supported the cooperative directors’ model for the following reasons:
1. This model defines the percentage of monies for statewide core services, public libraries and cooperatives.
2. It supports a basic level of regional service.
3. The model is simpler to explain.
4. However, this model also does not address the funding of State Aid.
All of Woodlands members at the meeting realized that work must continue to develop a model acceptable to the vast majority of libraries in the State. Once an acceptable model is developed and draft legislation is written, our members request a reasonable amount of time (sixty to ninety days) to review it.
The Michigan Library Cooperative Directors Association has an alternate proposal for State Aid to Public Libraries. Please note that this was approved by a vote of 10-2, so it is not unanimous.
Cooperative State Aid Funding Model
Model Proposed by 10 of 12 Cooperatives
The Cooperative Directors propose the following model that funds cooperatives, core services and public libraries:
50% Public Libraries (per capita)
30% Statewide core services (Databases, Resource Sharing, Delivery)
20% Eight or fewer cooperatives
The largest portion of State Aid goes to public libraries.
Establishes a percentage for statewide core services which comes from state aid.
Achieves equity in the delivery of statewide core services and builds upon QSAC.
Defines the core services every cooperative must provide with state aid funding.
Ensures there is a mechanism for libraries to pool their resources and continue regional cooperation and provides a method for the long term development of libraries.
Cooperatives are funded to cover only basic overhead costs. Cooperatives will work to enhance statewide core services, pool resources in order to avoid duplication and promote the sharing of services, consult (local, regional, statewide), provide leadership for the region and state, seek grants for research and development, advocate for library development (local, regional, and statewide), offer networking/communication (regional and statewide), training and continuing education (regional and statewide), coordinate statewide initiatives, aggregate buying power for members, and facilitate information technology planning, consultation, and support.
Libraries can decide if they want to be a member of their regional cooperative. Cooperatives can sell additional services to members: ILS system, ILL outside of MeLCat, local delivery, workshops, technical support/training, marketing and PR, discounts, bibliographic services, etc.
AS formatting is limited on this blog, if you would like a copy of this proposal in Word format please contact me at kmiller@uproc.lib.mi.us.
Ken Miller
President
Michigan Library Cooperative Directors Association
Director
Hiawathaland Library Cooperative
Sault Ste Marie
Thank you to the Michigan Library Cooperative Directors Association for helping make sense of this proposal.
As a Board member of the Mideastern Michigan Library Cooperative representing academic/special libraries, I checked the Blog a few weeks ago to see what the new Coop model entailed. While I'm certain that the committee spent a great deal of time studying the topic, the resulting report left me with more questions than answers. Historically, our Coop provided all libraries (once upon a time through the ROC), with an opportunity to work collaboratively to provide library services to our communities. Without this support, many of us would not have been able to receive grants for automation and other worthwhile endeavors. MeL databases and MeLCat are two examples of how progressive the state has been in supporting all types of libraries. Unfortunately, those of us in academia, especially community colleges, are not usually at the top of the list of funding for new initiatives. For us, participation with other area libraries through MMLC has given us the chance to demonstrate need and benefit to our administrations.
Today, I was pleased to see a more fleshed out approach in the proposed plan from the Michigan Library Cooperatives Directors. A streamlined, statewide organization of coops that provide core services to its members - libraries of all sizes, with an opportunity for associate status for other types - should be a fully defined goal of any new plan adopted by the LoM.
I would encourage you to embrace this proposal.
Denise Hooks
Library Director
Mott Community College
Flint, Michigan
My immediate reaction to this plan is that it is a vendetta against library cooperatives. As vice-president of a coop board which directs what I believe to be an exemplary coop, providing outstanding services and advice with efficiency, timeliness, personal care, and fiscal responsibility to 36 member libraries of all sizes, I am outraged. Don't try to tell me that the State Library could ever duplicate this level of service! Why would a committee charged with developing a reorganization plan for library cooperatives not have consulted all the existing coops and assessed the programs of each one in order to recommend an ideal model? Why in Michigan's current economic climate would anyone advocate changes which would jeopardize the ability of small libraries to procure advice, services, and equipment needed to optimize patron services? Think again!
I also believe that this new plan will hurt small libraries. We need our Co-op. Without it we are just a room of books.
Maybe the richer areas don't need their coops and maybe some coops aren't doing their job. But my coop (Superiorland) is doing an excellent job. I would be alone and adrift without the support of Susanne, Jean, Shawn, Betsie, Pam, and JoAnne.
I have read with interest the proposal(s) and the various responses to same. I am responding with two general items of concern.
The White Pine Library Cooperative provides essential services that we cannot obtain elsewhere. It is an important part of our Mid-Michigan library circle of services.
I can state catagorically that the MeL is an essential part of our research program. Google and other general serch engines are filled with so much non-authoritative garbage that my users cannot get to the facts. Isn't providing patrons with quality sources a major imperative for us?
Our library cannot afford even one of the MeL databases, which is the case for a vast percentage of SCHOOL libraries.
I am hoping that as the Library of Michigan plans for the future it builds stronger ties with the school libraries. We have been a prime target for those looking for money to pay for their pet projects. Many administrators think anyone can run a library, and many certified librarians have been kicked to the curb. And where we are, so soon many more and more public librarians may be.
Money and services will continue to be stretched for all libraries, public or otherwise. The LoM must remember that cooperatives & school libraries are an key part of the overall state system, and take a strong stand in support of us. Providing MeL is great, but the stragetic power of the LoM itself should be exercised.
Perhaps my comments are more of the philosophical bent rather than that of "financial business models" type comment (also important). We all need to continue to take a stand that libraries are vital to a thriving democracy and state. The final proposal determined by the LoM leadership must be based on these ideas.
Colleen Montalbano
T L Handy Library
Bay City
I believe C. Hage summarized the model appropriately - and the proposal from the coop does nothing but secure the coops. Neither model addresses the amount of State Aid or the equality of MEL - nor is it supposed to...its a model for legislators to understand. Additionally, my expectation is that small libraries are capable of managing their own shops and we do not need an additional layer of management between the libraries and the State. The State model enables small libraries to secure this hand holding if they desire...the reality is that once ILL went to MEL the nature of Coop work changed...and the movement to a centralized service is different not bad. Along the way the work of Coops has changed and in some cases disappeared...move on...this is a small funding issue compared to millages...
This comment is specifically intended to address questions raised in the comments the library community has offered. Where similar or closely related questions have arisen, I’ve aggregated my responses, so as not to be redundant. Keep your comments coming. They are all valuable, especially those that are as constructive and directed as possible for optimum utility whether they criticize or endorse the proposal or its separate elements. I will send out a notice to the MichLib-L list soon to address questions about how long the comment period will last, but please note that the comment period will continue through the end of March.
There have been a number of comments about the drawbacks of using state aid funds to support the costs of MeL. Please keep in mind that the model indicates that some of the state aid appropriation would go to LM for statewide services that benefit everyone (services such as: MeL databases, MeLCat, or Statewide delivery). This does not mean that the majority of the state aid appropriated funding would go to the Library of Michigan for these core statewide services. Nor does this mean that all of MeL or all of statewide delivery would be funded via state aid. Per our new LSTA 5-year plan with IMLS, MeL will, for the foreseeable future, continue to be funded mostly by federal LSTA dollars – a determination made by LM with ongoing input from libraries statewide these past several years.
Whatever portion of state aid would ultimately be distributed to LM for statewide services, it would be LM’s responsibility each year to determine what statewide services that benefit everyone could be partially supported using those funds. If there were enough money in a given year, for example, to fund two weekly stops of statewide delivery for every public library, that is what we might arrange; if there were more money another year, we might look at supplementing the databases with a new one that would serve the patrons of public libraries well.
The 3-year strategic plan for state aid (at the very top of the model) would inform how this might play out, involving discussions and input from public libraries from around the state. It is important to note that libraries have had, and will continue to have, input in the process for database selection, whether they are to be partially funded with state aid funds or not.
In the blog comments, someone asked “where is the formula that would guarantee state aid to public libraries?” Another asks, “How much money is on the table?” There is no formula attached to the model, since it’s just a skeleton around which to build formulae and details. But the real answer is that there is no guarantee, even with a defined formula, of state aid for public libraries. There is no amount on the table, as it’s a new ball game each and every year. The intent of this entire process is to arrive at a model that will instill confidence in the Legislature that their appropriations would be well-placed, with definable outcomes if they choose (as we hope they would) to find the funds each year to appropriate to state aid to public libraries.
With regard to the comment about cooperatives having to re-organize and the concern that the three year contracts between them and libraries would be an issue since state aid funding is uncertain – I would point out that the reason the three year contracts idea was included in the model was because it was suggested by several people in the advisory committee that it would not be fair to the cooperatives to expect to deal with libraries opting in and out on short notice. I would think that it would be easy enough to include a caveat statement in any contract that stipulates that the contract is contingent on the library’s receipt of state aid to public libraries funds in any of the three years in question. The core services eligible for state aid fund expenditure by the recipient libraries are fairly broadly defined in the model and were designed to include some of the main services the successful cooperatives provide to the libraries that use them now – just specifically defined in the interest of consistency, and in the interest of making successful argument in support of continued or increased appropriation of funds.
The length of time for transitional direct funding of cooperatives while they change over to the new model is not determined. Once a basic skeletal model is defined, that would be one of the details to be fleshed out by further discussion and comment among the library community. Remember that, while direct funding to cooperatives is phased out in the model, that does not mean that all of the money that had gone directly to the cooperatives would be phased out – it would be re-routed directly to the libraries who could then choose to expend it in continued support for cooperative services.
Another commenter asks about the core services that can be purchased by libraries with the state aid they receive directly and whether those state aid funds can be used to cover costs for individual library operations. Related questions are also raised along with the suggestion that state aid be used to buy books. Currently the amount of state aid distributed directly to public libraries is not limited for purchase of defined or core services. This provides flexibility, of course, but it also jeopardizes the continuation of that funding. Much of the argument against sustaining state aid funding these past couple of years has focused on the fact that libraries in Michigan are established and funded locally, and since the bulk of the funding for public libraries is local, the state does not necessarily see a need or a responsibility to step in and fund the local activities, expenses, etc.
So, as part of the intent to establish consistency and argue for state funding that results in equitable provision of library services statewide, eligible services libraries can purchase with their directly received state aid funds are broadly defined as those that connect the state’s public libraries. Those services that result from a clear focus on locally and uniquely determined priorities ought to be covered by local funds via local decisions and planning. The local focus of public libraries is of undeniable importance, of course. It’s just that part of what Michigan’s public libraries do continues to be locally controlled and, hence, locally funded. The argument for state funding for public libraries is ultimately strengthened by defining eligible expenditures that would more logically fall under the purview and the responsibility of the state in the interest of Michigan’s residents collectively.
Nancy
If state aid to libraries is diverted to pay for the core services as outlined in the proposed model, would this aid cease to be state aid to libraries? Instead, these monies actually become a part of the LOM budget. In effect, all state aid to the local libraries would be reduced, even lower than the present 32.47 cents per capitia. Is this healthy for libraries, specially the small libraries?
By the way, there is no guarantee in this model that the current level of funding will be continued into the new organization of state core services and the library cooperatives.
When recent state fiscal problems are considered, I believe there will be more state aid reductions and the local libraries will suffer first, than the LM. The structure of the proposed model almost guarantees this.
Ron
"When recent state fiscal problems are considered, I believe there will be more state aid reductions and the local libraries will suffer first, than the LM. The structure of the proposed model almost guarantees this."
I agree. While the funding model that sends state aid directly to local libraries does create some inefficiencies, one benefit of that model is that it gives state legislators an interest in ensuring that those funds come back to their local community. It makes every legislator a potential advocate for library funding. When the recipient of those funds are shifted to Lansing and the LOM/HAL, we lose those advocates and the funds become an easy target in tight budget times.
Some will point to the reduction in state aid in recent budgets as proof that the current model doesn't protect state aid. But let's not forget that LOM did little to make the case for stopping those cuts. Some have said that LOM actually supported those cuts. Compare what happened to State Aid for local libraries to what happened with State Shared Revenue for local governments. They came out of the budget cuts in much better shape because they had strong advocacy in Lansing for protecting those funds. It's hard to fight for maintaining funding for libraries when LOM acquiesces to those proposals.
Last Thursday, January 17, the Board of Trustees of the Charlotte Community Library, by a vote of 6 to 0, decided that they were in general support of the proposal by the 10 Co-operative Directors and not in favor of the proposal put forward by you and your committee.
My own personal feeling is echoed in other comments. Too much is left to the State Library Staff and too little for input by the public library directors, trustees and coop directors. There is little incentive for the State Library, Mla or any other group to fight for additional funds.
The State Library needs to find another way to fund the core services, and if they can't be funded another way, then maybe they are simply pie in the sky. People will support programs that they find beneficial. Maybe the State Library hasn't conviced enough individuals of the importance of taxes to support these core services.
You need to listen to the smaller libraries, as well as to your own staff, and to convince the politicians of the importance of library and archival services.
Bill Siarny
The devil is in the details. I have many reservations about the proposed model and questions that I wish someone could answer, especially with a statewide library catalog. If, in the future, cooperatives do take on the new 501c3 model, is that only for a shared catalog? Will patrons still place holds "within" the cooperative first, and then look elsewhere if the title isn't available as they do now?
Statewide sharing might make the state resources more "equitable", but for those of us that are part of a cooperative that is functioning well, it will mean a decrease in the qualitiy of services we can offer to our patrons. The promed delivery service now being used by MelCat is much worse than the delivery service we had been using. More items are lost or damaged now than with our previous delivery service. Enough, that it is a drain on our sources. And we don't have enough money to re-purchase items, and promed is not financially responsible it seems, for items lost or damaged in intransit. And when you also add into the mix that items going to patrons throughout the state, we are talking about a 6-7 week checkout period.
Limited, finite lifespans of material and increased demands will put a strain not only on our library collection but on our staff as well. Processing several hundred more items with the same staff will decrease the service we currently offer our patrons. And our city is paying extra to have the quality of service and goods our library currently offers but they will not be able to give us anymore for the increase in demands on our staff and our collection. Who will pay for that?
Additionally, in the next few years publishing paradigms will change even more radically as ebook readers or downloadable internet materials become more commonplace and I have no idea how libraries will be able to compete with "subscription" readers. We need more money now just to stay a few steps behind the curve. More libraries are closing as municipalities feel the burden of decreased tax revenues as it is. Libraries that would perhaps remain open if they received more of their funding from the state.
Although a state-run library system might make it more equitable, it will certainly decrease the quality and services local libraries in many instances can offer. And it is getting harder to maintain our current level as it is. An increase in demand on staff and materials without funding for either to each library does not make sense to me.
Jackie Saturley
Roseville
Dear Ms Robertson;
At its January 9, 2008 meeting, the White Pine Library Board discussed the proposed model of State Support for public libraries in Michigan.
The Board unanimously rejected the proposed model.
• The proposed model is based on a false premise. Most of the cooperatives in Michigan are doing well. They are providing the services their members want and need. We strongly feel that State Aid has been used effectively
• The model does not support equitable service for all Michigan libraries. It favors only well-funded libraries.
• The model will increase local out-of-pocket costs to provide service, such as continuing education and consulting services.
• The model does not provide any budgetary information on State Aid use upon which we can make informed decisions.
• The model does not establish any minimum requirements for local responsibility, initiative for library services or development.
• The five categories for which State Aid can be used are not well defined and will cause dissention in the library community.
• The model assumes libraries use cooperatives only for inter-library loan of materials and delivery. This is not true. The cooperatives provide so much more, including continuing education, consulting, advice on collection development, etc.
• The model implies that State Aid to public libraries will be used to support programs that are, we feel, used more by academic and school libraries than public libraries. Those other institutions should pay their share of the cost. They get a great deal more per capita funding than public libraries. Why is only State Aid to public libraries being tapped to pay for this service?
• There appear to be no limits set for how much Aid will go to H.A.L to pay for the state-wide programs. As costs rise, will State Aid to public libraries diminish?
• We are very concerned about small and rural libraries who will no longer receive enough State Aid to make it worthwhile to apply for. That has very negative implications for future library development. This will result in a diminishing level of library service for patrons.
• The model does not allow for the continuation of cooperatives in Michigan. Their costs, to be self-supporting, would be too high for most of the libraries to take advantage of. Cooperatives allow member libraries’ local dollars to go farther.
The Library Cooperative Directors’ Association has created a model that we feel is more supportive of small and rural libraries.
• It keeps the requirements of supporting state-wide initiatives.
• It provides support for local library development.
• This model is also more in keeping with the original intent of The State Aid to Public Libraries Act, which is to help local libraries provide better services to the residents of Michigan.
• It provides specific percentages of how State Aid should be divided among the participants.
We request that you reconsider your proposed model and work with the library community to create a sustainable level of library support and development in Michigan.
Sincerely,
White Pine Library Cooperative Board
Thank you for recent questions regarding length of time between when comments are made and when they appear on the blog. Comments are approved by hand, not automatically; we receive them via email and post them as quickly as possible.
Sonya Schryer Norris
Library of Michigan Web Site Administrator
Blog Moderator
Someone said "most local libraries are funded locally." What about those that are NOT funded locally?Just leave them by the roadside to do the best they can to continue to under-serve their patrons?
I don't think there are huge differences between Nancy's proposal and the Coop Association's proposal. In fact, it seems that the envisioned system in the Coop Assoc. proposal could be achieved under Nancy's framework with some trust and collaboration. Yet there seems to be suspicion and fear that LM will "take" the money for MeL. It seems to me that each local library under this proposal will get more State dollars directly and be able to spend it on services they need. So it can't be books or salaries, but if technology and bandwidth are paid with state funds, then the local funds can go to books and salaries.
There is a risk that larger, more-well-funded libraries will not choose to spend their money on contracts with Coops for services and thus the viability of Coops will be threatened. It puts pressure on the Coops to be entrepreneurial and responsive to needs of big and small.
As for leaving behind the libraries that have no local support, propping up the idea of a library doesn't serve the goal of providing real library service. Real library service costs real dollars. This proposal would need to look much different if its goal was to completely fund public library service across the state, like a public school model. Jim Curtis' comment along these lines is well stated.
As the director of a small class IV library, I would like to speak in favor of the state librarian's proposal. It provides for the continuation of cooperatives on an as-needed basis. Libraries would have the benefit of the full state aid allocation and they can then decide what services they wish to contract for with their cooperatives. Shirley Cody, Three Rivers Public Library
Under the State Aid Model proposed by State Librarian Nancy Robertson, I have several concerns:
1. I support the idea of having some funding available for statewide core services. However, I am against the idea of leaving funding of the statewide core services open-ended as the current model recommends. I believe that after a few years statewide core services will consume all of the monies. Once you start a statewide service it is almost impossible to change directions.
2. Tension is built into the latest Library of Michigan draft model. Set aside the question of whether or not the state should fund regional systems. What is left is a battle between the HAL Department, Library of Michigan and local public libraries over the % of state aid going to statewide programs and the % going to local libraries. The Library of Michigan has been in three different departments during the past 30 years. Does anybody believe that HAL will be around for the next 30 years?
3. A new law will have to be written and passed to replace PA 89. PA 89 provided for the establishment of cooperative libraries; to prescribe the powers and duties of the department of history, arts, and libraries; to provide state aid for public libraries participating in cooperative libraries; to prescribe the powers and duties of cooperative library boards; to provide an appropriation; and to repeal acts and parts of acts. If you remove library cooperatives from PA 89 you are left with public libraries getting $.50 per capita.
4. Regional library cooperation has been funded since 1949. Removing library cooperatives from the proposed state aid model will lead to the demise of regional library cooperation. The list of services cooperatives could sell under the proposed model is very limited. Overhead costs would easily make the prices a cooperative would have to charge unaffordable which is why many small public libraries are not members of MLC or MLA?
5. Michigan’s public libraries have automated, expanded their use of telecommunications (Internet), established district libraries, and now offer services and facilities never heard about 30 years ago. State aid has helped libraries to achieve these diverse goals. Are we limiting ourselves and our patrons by only funding statewide core services?
I wish to take exception with the statement "libraries would have the benefits of the full state aid allocation and they can then decide what services they wish to contract for with their cooperatives".
The latter part of this statement first. Already contained within the model proposed by the Library of Michigan are limitations on the services cooperatives can provide. Further, there are no guarantees in this model that these services will not be cut in the future. With inflation and the present pressures on the state finances and expected flat or declining growth in the state, income will decline while costs go up (they always do), future reductions are the guarantee. No guarantees are provided as to the future levels of state aid. Remember the fifty cents per capitia that is contained in PA89. Where is it?
Secondly, one of the purposes of this plan is to fund the state provided services Melcat-Mel datebases. These funds will come from your state aid currently going to libraries and cooperatives. The real question is what will remain for local library and cooperatives state aid. So how can state aid be relied on? The same basic problem applies here as well, what portion of state aid will be going to the libraries and cooperatives. The cooperative Directors proposal is better in that it contains some guidance as to the allocation of monies. But again, the problem of no guarantees comes up again. With greater reductions in state aid for the cooperatives than outlined in this plan, their future is in doubt. I believe that the funding of state aid in this proposal is very uncertain and needs further research and defination. I tend to concentrate on the funding of these proposals and I'm unhappy in this case. Remember, everything costs money and if you don't have any, thats what you get.
Ron
I am in favor of the proposal to utilize state aid funds for MelCat, Mel Databases and Delivery. I do have to add that I think the current delivery service is unacceptable and attention should be focused on improving this service. I don't see a problem in eliminating cooperatives, providing libraries that are currently in a cooperative with a shared automation system are given the opportunity to preserve their shared system. I think the current proposal is much too confusing and will drag the current system out for too long. If the state is going to stop funding coops, they should do so at the end of the state's fiscal year. Let us work out the rest. If this is going to be effective, and really save money, it needs to be very simple.
I am against the proposal as presented by Nancy Robertson. As a small rural library, we rely on our cooperative to provide essential services that we would not be able to afford on our own. Our cooperative has helped us to provide, for example, technologically based services to our patrons who typically cannot afford technology in their homes. Our cooperative has enabled us to receive and implement grants for technology. In addition, because our cooperative facilitates collaboration, we are able to improve our services to patrons. The value of the cooperative services far outweighs my library’s portion of the state aid. I would, however, consider a proposal that guarantees base funding for regional systems in order to ensure their continuation.
Please do not entertain the Library of Michigan’s current proposal as it is currently presented. Although well-intended, it does not meet the needs of small, rural libraries such as our’s.
Thank you for your time.
Elaine Erickson, Library Director
Ironwood Carnegie Library
I am the librarian at a high school library in the U.P. and I need everyone involved with this proposal by Nancy Roberston, our state librarian, to understand the importance of cooperatives to school libraries. Our library at Marquette Senior High School, and I would venture to say most school libraries in the U.P. would NOT be automated or participating in ILL without the help and support from Superiorland Library Cooperative. The Cooperative has been invaluable to me in terms of writing grants, training and support. With a very small and diminishing budget and the loss of a secretary and part time aide the last few years, I simply do not have the time or resources to maintain the services I do without the help of our Cooperative.
I strongly believe that we should be looking at ways to strengthen and support our Cooperatives if public, school, and academic libraries intend to be viable entities in this twenty-first century! Without the Superiorland Library Cooperative, the MSHS Library would still be in the “Dark Ages” in terms of library services.
Please consider all aspects and consequences of this plan before making your decision. I cannot and will not support any plan from the Library of Michigan that does not ensure the long-term continuation of regional cooperatives!
Jan Raskin, Library Media Specialist
Marquette Senior High School
I am against the proposal as presented by Nancy Robertson. As the director of a small rural library, my library depends on Superiorland Cooperative to provide essential services that we could not afford on our own. Technology services, automation, educational classes for staff, cataloguing, group purchasing discounts, and program support are just a few of the benefits of cooperative membership. We consider the cooperative staff as extensions of our staff. The cooperative’s support is essential to our success.
Please do not support the Library of Michigan’s current proposal as it is currently presented. It threatens the very services that small, rural libraries offer to level the playing field for students, families, businesses, the unemployed, and retired persons that depend on libraries for their link to lifelong learning. The proposal will have disastrous effects on small, rural libraries.
Thank you for your consideration and time.
Barbara Bartel
Library Director
West Iron District Library
I am librarian in Curtis, a small lake village in Upper Michigan. Our library is so busy! The community really appreciates the reading and technology services we offer. Library Cooperatives have made such a difference in our services. We need them so much--please don't cut their services or funding. Technology; USF funding; reading services; grants; staff support and so much more comes to us from Superiorland and Hiawathaland Library Cooperatives. Without them, and all Michigan Coops, our library, and Michigan libraries will suffer.
Michigan is struggling in so many ways! Our libraries are bright and positive places. Please let our cooperatives continue to put sparkle on our library services.
Yours Truly,
Linda Blanchard
Curtis Public Library
Curtis, Michigan 49820
The mail came today to my small rural library and I received books, books and more books. I opened the bill and to my surprise it was quite low. Then I remembered, I belong to the Superiorland Cooperative in the Upper Peninsula and through them we get book discounts so I can get more books for less. Yesterday when I got to work I couldn’t get my printer to print from any of my new Gates computers; has anyone ever gone a whole day without being able to print things? But after a quick call to Jean from
the Superiorland Cooperative she was able to tell me how to fix it and I didn’t have to pay her $80 an hour for her services because some of our state aid money goes to the cooperative for tech support. With that money they are able to help small rural libraries in the Upper Peninsula without
charging an arm and a leg.
Many libraries have written to you with reasons why cooperatives are
important especially in the Upper Peninsula but I wanted to give you
examples for their work. We can not do without them in the U.P. Our coops in the U.P. know our patrons demographics and our individual needs. The current LM proposal does not take these things into consideration and because of this our rural library, Richmond Township Library in the U.P., CAN NOT support it.
Jan St.Germain
Richmond Township Library
Having read the “State Support of Public Libraries Proposed Model", I have several concerns that must be addressed.
In the explanation of the model, it is stated that a portion of state aid is going to be allocated to the statewide core services designed particularly but not exclusively for the benefit of pubic library and patrons. It is hard to get an accurate idea of what this means as there is no mention of the actual cost of these services and how much state aid will then be allocated. University and college libraries benefit greatly from these sources and it has to be determined how they will be included in bearing the cost of the services. With the vagueness of this information, it appears that the funding will be taken from the public libraries and cooperatives. Another crucial point not mentioned is LSTA funding. What is the LSTA funding going to be used for instead of these services? This is key funding and does not seem to be included in this proposal. Initial core services eligible for State Aid expenditure by public libraries are also somewhat vague. While the Cooperatives already provide many of these services, it is unclear if there are hidden costs that will divert money that would have previously gone to the cooperatives, such as “Costs associated with participation in/enhancement of statewide core services.”
The problem seems to be with finding a solution that will work with a diverse group of libraries, which breaks down to the "have" and "have nots." The libraries in the Upper Peninsula have come to rely heavily on the Cooperatives in order to provide basic services, such as connectivity and technology that would not be possible if on their own. If it was not for state aid, these libraries could not afford to participate in the cooperatives, as their budgets are already stretched to provide day to day services. On several occasions, members of the Superiorland Cooperative have voiced their concerns and support for our cooperative. The Superiorland Cooperative is very accountable not only to the state, but most importantly to the members. Our libraries and the public will be penalized by not receiving the same level of service if we do not continue to support and maintain our cooperatives.
My main concern is the support of the cooperatives and I do not support a proposal with the potential to harm libraries and cooperatives.
Beth Baker
Director
Dickinson County Library
I do not support the model for State Aid to public libraries as proposed by Nancy Robertson.
The proposed model of state support of public libraries shifts fiscal responsibility from local library boards to the Library of Michigan. State Aid, now a fundamental part of a limited library budget, used as a local board decides best for their library, would instead be administered by the Library of Michigan.
In our library, these funds are used to help support costs for evening hours and for our membership in the regional library cooperative. Our cooperative is crucial for our library. With this cooperative our small, rural and remote (we are the northernmost public library in the state) can purchase materials through group discounts and provide an Internet accessible catalog. Costs for community programs, Internet resources and staff training can be shared. Collaborative grants for technology and joint projects can be successfully completed. Our cooperative has a professional staff to assist with cataloguing, automation, public relations, and program support. The cooperative staff is our staff, and not just in a distant office. They are familiar with our physical facilities, our staff, our library history, and our local politics.
Without a well-funded local regional cooperative our library would not be able to provide the high level of service that we now offer to our community.
The MeL databases, the MeL catalog and the statewide delivery system are all important resources for our users. We would like these statewide programs to continue, but not at the expense of the limited funds made available to public libraries. Academic libraries use these resources as well. Costs for these programs should be equitably shared.
As a new model for State Aid to public libraries is developed, the importance of the part that regional cooperatives play in providing service to small and medium sized libraries must be considered. Increased support of cooperatives and equitable funding of statewide resources should be essential pieces of the whole.
Debra Oyler
Calumet Public School Library
Thank you for considering my comments on the proposed model for State
support of public libraries. I appreciate all the effort that has gone into
the process.
I do have a number of concerns about the proposal:
First, I believe that privatizing all cooperatives is a mistake. As you
well know from the feedback you have received from librarians around the
State, not all library cooperatives are dysfunctional. Some cooperatives,
such as the Superiorland Library Cooperative, are already meeting the needs
of public libraries, are already cost-effective, efficient and equitable.
Why not apply the benchmarks for success outlined in the proposal now and
retain those cooperatives that achieve those benchmarks? The proposal is
clearly designed to dismantle cooperatives. If this model goes forward, you
will have disregarded the majority of U.P. libraries who have spoken out
resoundingly in support of the cooperative model.
Second, the initial core services (MeL) to be funded by State Aid as defined
in the proposal are biased. While most public libraries value the MeL
databases and MeLCat, those services are not designed particularly for the
benefit of public libraries and their patrons, as the proposal states. If
use measures for these services were available, I expect they would show
that these services (particularly the MeL databases) are most relevant to
and most utilized by the academic library community. I appreciate these
services and am delighted to make them available to the patrons in our
region; I want to continue to be able to offer them. However, it is truly
regrettable that they will be available only at the expense of library
cooperatives. A more equitable means of sharing the cost for MeL between
academic, public and State should be explored.
Third, the proposal is not specific enough in terms of how State aid will be
allocated. I would be more likely to support the model if I had some notion of how the
funding would be divided - and if there was some mechanism to ensure that
not all of the State aid funding would be funneled to pay for databases as
the costs rise each year.
Finally - let's keep talking and keep the process transparent. When
we started down this path in September of 2006 with "town hall meetings,"
the discussion was fairly innocuous: about strengths and weaknesses, roles
of the various parties and how we could all work together effectively.
However, that seemed to snowball into an offensive on cooperatives quickly.
Valid or not, there is a perception in the U.P. library community that the
intent from the beginning has been to find funding for statewide programs
(MeL) before the clock runs out on the LSTA dollars - and that cooperatives
were an easy mark. Naturally, there is conflict when there is change;
however, the whole process might be smoother if all the issues (including
the contentious and divisive) were acknowledged and put on the table from
the beginning.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. I appreciate the complexity
of the issues, however, I cannot support a proposal that jeopardizes our
regional library cooperative.
Carolyn Stacey, Director
Escanaba Public Library
I feel that to require libraries to use state aid only for statewide programs, will hinder, rather than help some libraries. There are those of us who do not need, for example, statewide delivery. Mandating that we must use our funding for programs that are not needed in our area, is like giving a blind man a book in print rather than a book on tape.
I think it would behoove all concerned to let us use the funds as we see fit. Michigan librarians do their best to offer exemplary services to our patrons and we know our libraries best. Purchasing materials, offering summer reading programs, being open for a couple more hours per week...these are all important services as well. Keep the decision making where the decision makes the impact.
Jennifer Strand
Osceola Township School/Public Library
On February 5, 2008, the Advisory Council of the Mideastern Michigan
Library Cooperative met and discussed the State Support of Public Libraries
Proposed Model (December 2007). MMLC serves an eight county area in mid
Michigan and has sixteen public libraries of which seven are class VI libraries. We also have four academic libraries and ten school libraries as members.
After much discussion we came to some conclusions which we would like to
share with you and the rest of the library community.
1. We agree that the time has come to examine how Michigan libraries are funded and handled at the state level. However we feel that this proposal does not accomplish the goals of simplifying the funding of services at a state level for our legislators and does not adequately take care of the needs of medium and small public libraries.
2. We believe that regional library (cooperatives) service is necessary. Regional libraries provide assistance in materials purchase/discounts, consultant services, and training, board and staff issues as well as a back-up to the Library of Michigan in library development. We agree that twelve is too many, and we should work for a smaller number of cooperatives. We also believe that there are cooperatives that should be looked at as models and would strongly urge that MMLC be one of those.
3. Regional libraries must receive a base level of funding to cover overhead. The vendor type cooperative is not a reasonable alternative. The notion that cooperatives can exist where libraries band together to form them defeats the goal of having uniformity and equity across the state.
4. The Class VI libraries in MMLC believe that the cooperative is necessary to assist the medium and small libraries. The success of these libraries in a region means a lesser burden on the large libraries and fewer requests for their resources.
5. The proposal has no mechanism for growth and no insurance that the growing cost of the core services will not infringe on the state money received by the public libraries.
6. The core services are too limited and do not allow for change related to future needs of library users. Professional support, consulting and advocacy are essential core services currently provided by our existing cooperatives that need to be incorporated in any new model of regional library service that we may consider.
7. As for the funding, we believe that state funds should go directly to the public libraries and the cooperatives (base funding). Public libraries should then be able to purchase the core services from the Library of Michigan or their designee. The idea of having state funding pay directly for the core services and, therefore, become part of the operations of LM will inhibit the public libraries’ ability to advocate for those funds. Legislators view funding of state agencies in a different light then they do funding that goes to agencies in their districts. And legislators take great pride in the success of their community (regional) libraries.
8. More planning needs to be done before we make such a major change in library service delivery in the state. We recommend having a study done by an outside party, or at the very least, have a new series of town hall meetings that have the cooperatives and other funding issues on the agenda.
In summary we applaud the idea of exploring a new and more efficient way of providing equitable service to our library users. We do not, however, believe that the current proposal will provide for that end. More study is required and a broader base is needed to develop a new plan.
In the hope of providing better service to Michigan’s residents,
Mideastern Michigan Library Cooperative Advisory Council.
Genesee District Library, Class VI, pop: 329,382
Capital Area District Library, Class VI, pop: 240,165
Public Libraries of Saginaw, Class VI, pop: 132,705
Flint Public Library, Class VI, pop: 124,943
Bay County Library System, Class VI, pop: 109,935
Grace A. Dow Memorial Library, Class VI, pop: 75,939
Lapeer District Library, Class VI, pop: 62,378
Shiawassee District Library, Class V, pop: 28,742
Community District Library, Class IV, pop: 23,617
Holly Township Library, Class IV, pop: 22,397
Ruth Hughes Memorial District Library, Class III, pop: 11,260
Laingsburg Public Library, Class III, pop: 7,132
Almont District Library, Class II, pop: 6,041
Vernon District Library, Class II, pop: 4,980
Dryden Township Library, Class II, pop: 4,624
North Branch Township Library, Class I, 3,595
Baker College Library System, Flint, MI
Kettering University Library, Flint, MI
Mott Community College Library, Flint, MI
Genesee School District, Genesee, MI
Grand Blanc Community Schools, Grand Blanc, MI
Imlay City Community Schools, Imlay City, MI
Having studied and discussed the current proposed model for state support of public libraries the Board of Trustees of the Mideastern Michigan Library Cooperative (MMLC) voted unanimously at its January meeting to send a letter of concern. MMLC provides services for 16 public libraries, four academic libraries, one special library, and 10 school libraries located in eight counties. The Board of Trustees is very proud of the coop’s contribution to the strengthening of patron services for our member libraries of all sizes.
One of our major concerns with the model is the role assigned to coops. That role appears designed to eliminate coops altogether, therefore depriving small and medium size libraries of a support system they cannot afford to purchase privately. In a plan where cooperatives have no basic financial support, the ability to provide cost-effective, competitive services to libraries will likely be impossible, especially if those services are restricted to a limited list. Overhead costs alone would price services out of the range of small library systems.
Training as detailed in this proposal does not include anything related to children’s services, customer service, millages, hiring practices, etc. These valuable services are today done by cooperatives within their region, providing a layer of service in all parts of the state which MLC, MLA, and LM cannot duplicate. Those who designed PA 89 of 1977 saw that there needed to be regional centers around the state to upgrade library service for all the residents. Cooperatives have met this challenge and used economies of scale to get technology and other services to every library.
With the plan as it stands the smaller, less affluent libraries are being left out of the loop. We as a Board of Trustees of a successful coop firmly believe that regional library operations should exist across the state and that without such operations to advocate for the specific needs of “their” libraries the Library of Michigan will have abandoned a significant number of communities.
The model as proposed is based on the status quo and fundamental future issues are unresolved, with details left to the imagination. We have attached a series of questions that we feel must be addressed to create a workable future plan for co-operatives and member libraries (Appendix 1).
The MMLC Board believes that the above issues regarding this proposal need to be addressed. We suggest that a professional study of the delivery of library services at local, regional and state levels is needed. The results of such a study should show through data and objective observation how to reorganize to provide the best, most stable library services possible for every Michigan citizen.
Sincerely,
Mideastern Michigan Library Cooperative Board
APPENDIX 1: Questions Regarding Proposal To Be Addressed
• What is the plan for transition from the current PA 89 to a new program?
• How do the present cooperatives transition to the future cooperatives?
• What happens to the assets of the present cooperatives?
• What happens to staff?
• What does a “temporary subsidy” from state aid for cooperatives mean?
• Do all of the present cooperatives get the proposed subsidy or only cooperatives formed under a new law?
• How many cooperatives will there be?
• Would they cover the entire state?
• Did the designers of the proposal think that the long-term contracts would include some overhead costs that might be considered a membership fee?
• How much of the state aid is to be spent on the core services? Does this mean that each year the libraries and the LM must decide how much is spent on core services, how much is paid as state aid to public libraries?
• How will the academic and school libraries pay their share of core services? What about out-of-state electronic universities?
• Regarding MeL Delivery, will every library get 5 day a week delivery or will it be pro-rated based on the size of the library? Will only public libraries get delivery or will every library in MeLCat get delivery?
• What participation will public libraries have in the selection of MeL databases?