What has changed recently that suddenly we don’t have enough money to keep our libraries open? Hasn’t the funding stayed relatively steady? Hasn’t the library system saved some stability money to prevent budget fluctuations from knocking it over / why is there no buffer money item in the budget? Have you been spending as if revenue would increase? Why are expenses rising shouldn’t they only increase with inflation? What is the “other” field in the budget? Why is there a million dollar service on debt every year?

Why do we hear about the problems only once a plan has been made to close libraries? Why is public interaction only an afterthought (or has the library system tried and failed to involve the public)?

Andy Somerville added this comment on Oct 08 09 at 12:27 pm

As a CLP staff member who’s location is scheduled to close, as a library user, and as a city resident, I feel I must reply to Mr. Somerville’s comments to at least provide some information for the benefit of those who may wish to express similar opinions:

1. “What has changed recently that suddenly we don’t have enough money to keep our libraries open?”

There’s nothing ’sudden’ about not having enough money to keep our libraries open. This has been happening for quite some time. Do you think this is the first year the state has reduced it’s support for libraries? I suggest you look back to 2003 when state libraries received a 50% - yes, I said 50% - reduction from what they received in 2002. Remember when all the hours of operation at the CLP locations were pretty much the same, with most locations closing at 8:00 during the week? Do you know the last year that happened? That’s right - 2002. That’s what a 50% reduction from a major souce of funding does to a library system. Not only were operating hours reduced to what they are now, but there were then - as unfortunatley there will be again - staff reductions and staff re-positioning to make up for that loss.

2. “Hasn’t funding stayed relatively steady?”

Well, yes and no. ’steady’, on the one hand, means no decrease. It also means no increase. Therein lies the problem. Level funding is fine as long as your expenses remain level also. Does anyone seriously believe that categories of expenditures such as health insurance premiums, materials (in this case books, DVD’s, database subscriptions, etc.), fuel costs, and facilities maintenance costs are ever, or will ever be, level from year to year for any business, let alone the library?

Yes, it’s true that CLP’s RAD allocation was the same this year as it was for 2008, but that allotment accounts for only 70% of library funding. The state’s allocation accounts for 25% - just about the rest. If 70% of the salesmen for company ‘x’ returned the same profit two years in a row, and the remaining 30% (to round up) returned profits 25% to 50% lower than the previous year, do you think company ‘x’ would feel it and need to make cuts and adjustments, or would they call that making a ‘level’ profit and be satisfied?

3.”Why do we hear about the problems only once a plan has been made to close libraries? Why is public interaction only an afterthought (or has the library system tried and failed to involve the public)?”

I must say that this is indeed a strange statement from Mr. Somerville since this very site which he posted to, and which has the express purpose of educating the public about the “problems” has been available since June, which, if my math is correct, was four months prior to the announcement of libraries closing.

While this particular forum has been available for only four months, anyone who is a frequent library user, and even those who are infrequent, but attentive, users have known about the difficulties of library funding for a long time. Articles and letters commenting not only on the status of CLP, but on the status of all the libraries in Allegheny County, the Allegheny County Library Association, and on the status of the RAD tax in this distressed economy, have been appearing in local newspapers and local media reports not just this week or this summer, but all year.

As far as “public interaction being an afterthought”, again, this specific forum has been around since June, which I would call ‘forethought’, but I suppose that could just be my interpretation. Also, there were the three town hall meetings in July held to not only inform the public, but to solicit input from them. I suppose this might be called ‘forethought’ as well, but I leave that for each to decide for him or herself.

Last, but in no way least, is the tireless dedication of library staff and the part they play in engaging the pubilc. I know that at my location we were very successful in getting our users to respond to the summer long letter writing campaign directed at local and state legislators. We left no person uninformed as to what the situation was and what they could do about it. I have no hesitation in making the same claim for the staff at all the other CLP locations. We got the word out - period.

So, I would definitely not say that we as staff failed to involve the public. What has to be remembered also is that people will only process enough information as they deem relevant to their lives, which can create the impression that they are not being informed. I will end with an illustration of this:

On Monday, the day before the announcement of the closings, there was a public rally at the Main Library in Oakland. One of the rally organizers had posted a sign in my location on Saturday informing people of the rally. Many people that day and again on Monday, some of whom visit the library multiple times a week, and whom have done so since the start of the public awareness campaign earlier this summer, saw the sign and with an incredulous look on their faces and surprise in their voices asked staff members “Are they thinking about closing this library?!!”

Some people go through life with blinders on and no matter how much information is around them, or who is trying to engage them, they always see too little…..too late.

Thanks for reading.
Steve

Steve added this comment on Oct 09 09 at 7:19 pm

I would encourage the Library Board of Trustees and Director - if they know they have acted with integrity and truly believe they have developed a plan that is in the best interest of the city-wide library system - to not allow themselves to be bullied or guilted into reversing that decision. You have a trust to maintain Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh for our children’s children. I know the library does not wish to abandon neighborhoods or citizens in specific neighborhoods, but with hard economic realties, the library’s primary mission cannot be to operate facilities solely because all other institutions have been allowed to walk away without any backlash.

Feldman added this comment on Nov 03 09 at 11:17 am