Thank You for Your Comments

Dear Michigan Library Community,

I want to thank the scores of you who have sent emails, letters, talked to me personally, and commented publicly on my blog regarding the draft revised model for state aid to public libraries I proposed at the end of December. It is incumbent upon the Library of Michigan to be proactive about the status and future of the appropriated state funds that fall under our stewardship, no matter how small a percentage of the larger funding contributions to public library service it represents.

In response to some of the correspondence and comment received, I would like to reiterate very clearly at this point that our intent has never been:

• to replace LSTA federal funding of the Michigan eLibrary with any portion of state aid to public libraries.
• to dismantle successful library cooperatives.
• to diminish the importance of collaboration and cooperation among Michigan libraries.
• to deny the importance of libraries to small or rural communities.
• to garner any portion of state aid to public libraries to augment the operations appropriation for staffing and programming of the Library of Michigan.

Additionally, it must be noted that the model was meant for use as a tool to facilitate discussion and input from the library community and was not intended to be a binding representation of future legislative changes to the State Aid to Public Libraries Act. In this vein, we wish to inform the library community that no efforts have been undertaken to implement the recommendations of the model or to pass legislation. Many have asked that we take time to study the situation and think through the options. The draft proposal and solicitation of comment have purposely been part of an effort to do just that. We have been intent on gathering input from the Michigan library community, input that will be valuable information in any determination of next steps or final proposals that may eventually evolve.

Fortunately, the Library of Michigan now has numerous comments and ideas to digest and ponder. It will undoubtedly take some time to accomplish this endeavor. The FY09 budget process is moving right along, and the appropriation for state aid to public libraries looks to be relatively solid for that time frame. However, the process for managing change proactively is not over. So while we take time to plan and engage in an even handed and thoughtful process, we are still committed to facilitating change that will strengthen the outlook for state aid funding for public libraries by the time the FY10 budget process gets under way. We are at the beginning of this process, and there is ample time for thoughtful and insightful discourse on this subject. We look forward to engaging in it with you all to arrive at a sustainable model for disbursement of state aid to public libraries geared toward equity, accountability, efficiency and measurable outcomes for public library service to Michigan’s residents.

Nancy

State Aid Model FAQ

Dear Colleagues,

I have received quite a few comments on the proposed model for state funding to public libraries. The comment period will run through the end of March, so please continue to comment (whether positive or negative) with specific suggestions for what, if anything, you would change and how.

Since I have had limited opportunities to get out and converse with members of the library community and clarify some things about the model since it was posted for comment, I have decided to put out a frequently asked questions (FAQ) document in order to make some clarifications of the model and its intentions. This clarification FAQ can be found at http://www.michigan.gov/hal/0,1607,7-160-17445_19270-186673--,00.html.

Thank you for your involvement in this process.

-Nancy

~~~~~~~~~~
Nancy R. Robertson
State Librarian
Library of Michigan

A Proposal for Comment

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.

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)

State Librarian’s Advisory Committee Meetings Interim Update

I know many of you are anxiously awaiting word about what suggested outcomes have resulted from the second of the two meetings of my advisory committee. We did have a very productive meeting on Monday, October 29th, but we are not quite ready to post our findings yet. A small subgroup is working on consolidating the ideas generated by our last table talks of the day; we need to circulate and review or revise the draft notes from the meeting; and we are working on a cover document that will kind of walk you all through the process and help you understand what our notes summarize and how things evolved in the discussion.

With the MLA annual conference taking up most of the week before last and Thanksgiving holidays next week, we need some extra time for communication back and forth amongst ourselves before we finalize a posting. I am also working with Library of Michigan staff to arrange for posting the documentation of both our first and our second meetings on the LM website, and we’ll be arranging for comment on all of it via this blog once everything is reviewed by the committee and we get it all posted. So, please understand that we are committed to getting it all out there for you to see and comment upon, but we need to take the time to do it right. Thanks in advance for your patience on this score.

In the meantime, as you can see by these photos of our October 29th meeting, the participants were extremely engaged in the process and worked long hours that day, as they did at the first meeting on September 24th. Please thank them when you see them, as they have represented you well and deserve your appreciation for their time and commitment.

Sharing Documentation from Advisory Committee Meeting 9/24/07

As most of you know, on Monday, September 24th, I met with the advisory committee I recently put together to review and discuss issues and options related to re-envisioning the way that state aid to public libraries funds are utilized to provide regionally distributed library services in Michigan. I had hope that one all-day meeting might allow for the drafting of a plan that would serve as a basis for public comment and more honing of ideas. We had a very productive meeting but were, not surprisingly, unable to complete the task in one sitting. So we will be meeting once more to finish the job, probably in late October. More later on that.

In the meantime, many thanks are due to the committee, whose members you can find listed on my August 22nd blog post. Between now and the next meeting, we will be posting documentation from the first meeting at the Superiorland webpages, once again thanks to Suzanne Dees’ help. These are found at:
http://www.uproc.lib.mi.us/slc/finance/serviceplan.html

The facilitators are still working on compiling the notes from the day’s discussions, so those are not yet posted. However, the agenda for the day and my slideshow summary of the points of conversation from all viewpoints these past months (which we reviewed during the beginning of the meeting) are already up on the site. The other notes from the day will be up there soon, so check again later this week or early next week.

Please keep in mind that these documents and the notes from the day are merely snapshots of the middle of an incomplete conversation. We have more brainstorming to do, and I don’t want people to think that what we’ve arrived at so far is written in stone or a complete picture of the ideas that will eventually be laid out on the table. Nevertheless, for the sake of transparency, and since I know many of you are likely wondering how the meeting went and what has come from it, we thought it best to post things between meetings.

Once the second meeting has been accomplished, we should be able to put together a draft plan or proposal for people to comment on in some interactive fashion (yet to be determined). Thanks for your patience in this process.

Continuing with ideas for a new model for state-funded, regionally distributed services to public libraries

Dear colleagues:

In these past few months I have received and collected a great deal of input, feedback, preferences, hopes, and concerns about how a new model for state-funded, regionally distributed services to public libraries might be defined and realized. It is time to take the next step in the process. To that end, I have formed an advisory committee which will meet for a one-time, all-day meeting in late September to hammer out a the draft plan we need as a basis for real comment, compromise, and ultimately revised or new legislation.

Prior to the meeting date, I will compile the data, comments, and recommendations I have collected and make it generally available to you and particularly to the committee members so they can review and digest it in advance of our work session.

I am so pleased that each person I asked to commit to this advisory committee and its task has agreed without hesitation and with enthusiasm. Once a date has been established for our meeting and when the compiled advance data and information is posted, I will be sure to let you know and keep you up to date on the process. Of course, true to the purpose of the advisory committee process, I will also share with you the draft plan developed from the ideas, compromises, and vision shared and examined at the all-day advisory committee meeting.

State Librarian's Advisory Committee on State Funded Regionally Distributed Services to Michigan's Public Libraries

Nancy Robertson

Nick Bozen
(HAL Office of Regulatory Affairs and Legislative Liaison)

Gretchen Couraud
(Executive Director, Michigan Library Association)

Suzanne Dees
(Superiorland Library Cooperative, Upper Peninsula Region of Library Cooperation)

Ann Holt
(Capital Library Cooperative)

Betsy Hull
(Community District Library, Class 4, Mideastern Michigan Library Cooperative)

Kay LaPierre
(Richland Community Library, Class 2, Southwest Michigan Library Cooperative)

Joan LundBorg
(Hart Area Public Library, Class 3, Mid-Michigan Library League)

Sheryl Mase
(Library of Michigan Director of Statewide Services)

Martha McKee
(Statewide library consultant)

Valerie Meyerson
(Charlevoix Public Library, Class 3, Northland Library Cooperative)

Heidi Nagel
(Ionia Community Library, Class 4, Lakeland Library Cooperative)

Larry Neal
(Clinton-Macomb Public Library, Class 6, Suburban Library Cooperative)

Stephanie Olson
(Iosco-Arenac District Library, Class 5,White Pine Library Cooperative)

Nancy Skowronski
(Detroit Public Library, Class 6, Detroit Library Cooperative)

Jean Tabor
(Canton Public Library, Class 6, The Library Network)

Lance Werner
(Library of Michigan Library Law Specialist)

Trixie Wint
(Homer Public Library, Class 1, Woodlands Library Cooperative)

Keep the Ideas Coming, Please!

I continue to receive more blog comments in response to my post on a new vision for regional services to Michigan's libraries, so be sure to check on the comments there periodically to see what your colleagues have to say on the subject. Additionally, I am continually receiving emails, letters, phone calls, and taking in conversational comments in person. I am trying to respond to each missive received, but at this point in the process, I'm essentially in listening mode -- not defending my ideas as posted and not expressing my agreement or disagreement with the input and ideas I'm receiving. If you have not heard back from me with regard to a response you've provided, please know that I am logging your comments and appreciate your input. There is no such thing as too many ideas on such an important topic.

In addition to individual comments from directors, staff, trustees, and patrons, various interest groups of people are providing their combined input. The library cooperative directors are completing their recommendations. I've received a letter from a significant number of directors of large southeast Michigan public libraries. Members of a specific library cooperative have provided a letter summarizing their recent discussion and consensus of opinion. And, I had the opportunity to visit the Oakland County Public Libraries Trustees Association last week, where I could share some more of my thoughts, but more importantly, was able to hear their ideas first hand. On July 26th, after my annual vacation in the first half of July, I will be heading up to Marquette to meet with Upper Peninsula library directors and staff. (They will also be hosting Michigan Library Association Executive Director Gretchen Couraud later this week on June 29th.)

So, the conversation is definitely in full swing. The ideas are flowing. And, now that the FY07 budget resolution is behind us, hopefully the FY08 budget situation will be known in the near future. If you have not had the chance to let me know your ideas, concerns, hopes and needs for future regional and statewide support for library services, please consider sending me (and Gretchen, your cooperative director, and any others) your comments, so that a maximum of ideas can be on the table for consideration by all interested parties by the end of the summer.

Enjoy your July 4th celebrations!

My Take on New Models

Why are we talking about this?

Later this year, the state begins the process for determining the fiscal year 2008/2009 budget. As we are all painfully aware, the budgets for the current fiscal year 2006/2007 and the upcoming fiscal year 2007/2008 are not yet completed. I was also a participant and observer of the process for the fiscal year 2004/2005 budget. Each time the process takes place, the Budget Office and the members of the Legislature have many questions about the uses of the appropriation for state aid to public libraries. This is understandable, of course, and the portion of the appropriation that gets paid directly to Michigan’s public libraries on a per capita basis is easily explained and justified. Addressing the questions about how the portions of the appropriation that are there to support library cooperatives is more problematic, and instead of becoming easier each year, the explanation becomes more difficult to articulate effectively as time passes.

The difficulty is due in part to the complexity and cumbersome nature of the distribution formula. But a large part of the challenge is the fact that the services that the thirteen library cooperatives provide to their member libraries and the way that they utilize (or do not utilize) some or all of the so-called swing aid funds vary from cooperative to cooperative. In addition to the disparity of services provided and uneven utilization of cooperative and swing aid funds, the decades-old model for how cooperatives are formed and established has evolved over time into an unwieldy, inequitable, geographically undefined system that does not inevitably result in enhanced public library service in the same degree for every resident of Michigan, even though state funds are appropriated and distributed for the purpose. Without any defined regional boundaries or identifiable and ensured core services, an unintended culture of haves and have-nots has arisen.

Just about a year ago, as I traveled around to speak with library directors at various cooperative member meetings, people began asking me to share my thoughts on what the future of library cooperatives might look like. My response was disturbing to some, but from my point of view, it was the only realistic and honest way to approach the question. I acknowledged that the system’s design is old and has been of falling out of date. In the past few decades, libraries have changed with the times and adjusted to the changing needs of their patrons and communities in so many significant ways, so it is inevitable that library cooperatives and the way they are established and function need to change as well.

The Library of Michigan is also part of the changing library scene. The Library of Michigan did not create the Michigan eLibrary catalog and resource sharing system (MeLCat), or require participation in statewide delivery as a pre-requisite to participation, in order to usurp two of the established roles that library cooperatives had played to date. We did it because it was time to do it and because it was the role of a state library to support the expansion of statewide services into the 21st century. Regardless of the intent, however, clearly library directors and staff began to see that those two services (resource sharing and delivery) are moving away from being defined by region or library cooperative, and they began to ask about the future.

I emphasized that change in the system is inevitable, as evidenced by the fact that change was already under way. I urged people to engage in developing and designing a new model, to be proactive about the change that is unavoidable by having a hand in shaping it. Library cooperatives or regionally distributed service to public libraries can still play a significant role in the success of our public and other types of libraries, but only if new aspects of that role are discovered and defined. My hope was to ignite successful thinking and action to design a new model for regional services to libraries before the old model gradually but inevitably falls out of relevance and utility. Unfortunately, the fiscal crisis in the state has arrived before we were able to have something new and solid in place. But, that does not mean that we should abandon our efforts to define and create a new model that incorporates sustainable components for the statewide and regional enhancement of public library service for all of Michigan’s residents in a fashion that will convince the state Budget Office and the state Legislature to appropriate state funds to support it.

What are my ideas about how to design the new model?

First, I believe that there should be fewer regional centers. I do not know exactly how many or what the boundaries should be at this point, but about six seems like the right number to me. Part of the issue for budget and legislative queries relates to the fact that thirteen administrative bodies are a lot to fund. The large number of cooperatives results in a disproportionate amount of state funds being expended on administration, such as staffing, overhead, etc., rather than having the bulk of whatever funding is appropriated going to sustain or enhance the services that Michigan’s residents receive at their public libraries. Consolidation is in order, and consolidation is an activity that will more likely be met with a positive response from government than the perpetuation of so many disparate administrative units would be.

Second, I would like to see defined contiguous geographic boundaries for the six or so regional entities. This would mean that when libraries establish themselves, when districts form, when libraries dissolve, the state funding that is provided for a particular region would remain constant according to the population served within a prescribed boundary. Libraries would not have to shop around for admission to the library cooperative that is willing to take them on; regional entities would not be vying for the participation of the more successful, better supported libraries. I am not sure how the funding formula should be defined to ensure that each defined region gets enough of the state aid to public libraries dollars to be able to provide similar, equitable quality core services. There would need to be some kind of accommodation for distance or density. Ideally, the regionally distributed services would be evenly and adequately funded by the state aid dollars and successfully provided no matter which region a resident lives in or where a library is located.

Third, some core services should be identified so that the public libraries and their residents in any region know what to expect from the state funds that serve them regionally or statewide, and so that budget officials and legislators can know what will be left unaccomplished or un-provided if they do not provide or sustain funding for it! I do not think that the core services should be itemized in legislation, but rather they should be generally mandated in the legislation and a mechanism should be included for defining them and reviewing their relevance and utility on a regular periodic basis.

My thought would be that some of them might be of statewide expanse – for example, aside from the portion of state aid funds that are distributed directly to libraries to support their operation, a portion of the state aid to public libraries might be used to cover the annual cost of statewide delivery for all public libraries in the state. Since participation in statewide delivery is required in order to participate in the statewide resource sharing system, MeLCat, it seems logical for the state to cover directly the costs of participation in the delivery service. Another possibility for coverage of a statewide expense could be a provision for libraries to utilize some of these identified funds in ways that make it financially and/or otherwise possible for them to participate in MeLCat, beyond the delivery costs. (These dollars might be used as the library sees fit, as long as the result is an enhanced ability to participate in the statewide resource sharing system. One library might use these funds to pay a portion of their costs for participating in a shared integrated library system through which they are able to participate in MeLCat. Another might use the funds to pay the costs of the additional staff they need due to increased circulation of materials being borrowed or lent through their participation in MeLCat.)

[NOTE: I would not expect that a shared ILS be specifically identified as a core regional service for the use of state aid funds for several reasons. First, not every regional center has or operates a shared system. Second, the concept of a shared system need not be regionally defined. It could be defined by library type, size, or common need, beyond regional location. But offering some opportunity to fund engagement in a shared system, no matter how it is formed, as a way to participate in a statewide service like MeLCat, as I described in the paragraph above, might be workable.]

A second tier of core services would logically be more regionally focused, because they would require proximity for provision of service. An example of this type of regional core service might be that each regional center provides technology trouble-shooting, training, and support. Another might be that each regional center serves as a central storage facility and coordinates and maintains a comprehensive shared set of disaster recovery supplies and/or contracts in the event of a collections disaster in any one or more libraries falling within that region’s boundaries. Another might be provision of regionally located continuing education opportunities, much as cooperatives engage in currently.

How could accountability for quality and quantity of services be ensured in such a model?

Accountability is an issue in the current system, partially because of the variability and disparate nature of the services provided with the state dollars used to fund the cooperatives.

If there are defined boundaries and defined services to be accomplished with the designated state dollars, a logical option would be to have the managers of the regional centers be employees of the Library of Michigan. In addition to the obvious opportunity to monitor even-handed application of funds and provision of services, this model would afford constant communication between the regions and the state library. Additionally, this model is likely to be looked upon favorably by those holding the purse strings of state dollars, since a state agency would be managing the funds and coordinating their expenditure on defined services.

Given the complexity and uneven expenditure of the swing aid provided in the current funding and regional establishment model, my preference would be to eliminate the concept of swing aid altogether. Beyond the portion of state aid that goes directly to libraries, a second defined portion of the state aid to public libraries appropriation could be dedicated to two branches of funds that would go directly to statewide and regional support services, respectively.

[NOTE: Even if regional centers result in defined core services and boundaries, this would not preclude local decision or obstruct the opportunity to engage in other un-imposed partnerships either within or outside of the regional boundaries. Collaboration of any kind is always to be encouraged and freely engaged in – it is just the state funded services that would fall under these defined boundaries and be earmarked specifically for these core services, since these alone would be what the regional centers would need to be held accountable for, given that they would be funded by state dollars.]

What should we expect to happen now?

First, the current fiscal crisis looms obviously and ominously. The sustainability of cooperatives as they are now established is unfortunately in question if state aid to public libraries is not forthcoming. I certainly hope that the current payments will be released soon and that state aid to public libraries is sufficient for the upcoming fiscal year staring on October 1st.

But in any case, several cooperatives are currently without directors and some are either dissolving or reducing their operations to minimal levels. The time is ripe for action and for consolidation. The current budget situation demands that we show we are working towards more efficiency, more accountability, and more clearly identifiable uses of limited state funds.

The thoughts I have outlined at length above are my considered opinion at this point. I have been asking and continue to ask for input, not just from the cooperative directors, but from you as well. The more ideas we have to work with, the better! The Michigan Library Association will, I am sure, be involved in any discussion related to revision or creation of legislation, as will the state Budget Office, the Legislature, and the administrative, gubernatorial and legislative liaisons here at the Department of History, Arts and Libraries.

Just because I, or anyone else, may have some ideas about how to design a new model for state funded regionally provided public library services, does not mean that model will automatically become reality. It has to be built in a way that the funding sources are willing to embrace the concept; it will have to have a timeline for public comment; it will undergo countless revisions and involve compromise and collaboration. Any legislation would have to have timelines for compliance, i.e., a transition period, and would need to account for grace periods or have workable deadlines for changes in administrative or budgetary structure. This is not something that can or will happen overnight.

I take it as my responsibility as your state librarian to be thinking ahead, to be formulating and generating ideas about the future, and to be concerned about and active in trying to move us forward in a fashion that will be sustainable over the long haul, be deemed acceptable for funding by state sources, and that will be good for Michigan’s public libraries well into the future. Of course, having laid this out, I encourage constructive discussion from all segments of the library community so that we can develop a plan to go forward together as a community to the public and the Legislature.