Comments on: “We now have six examples of poor to terrible performance by community libraries based on hard data”

By: Elizabeth (@ElizCro)

Elizabeth (@ElizCro) — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 11:31:08 +0000

And
*shameless plug*
all members of The Library Campaign receive a copy of the magazine by post. The May issue Ian refers to may now be pushed back to June so we can cover the launch of new research on public libraries undertaken by Steve Davies and Unison too.

Individual membership is only £15 a year.

Elizabeth Ash, Secretary, The Library Campaign thelibrarycampaign@gmail.com
Registered charity 1102634

By: Ian Anstice

Ian Anstice — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 07:11:52 +0000

There appears to be an issue with the comments system at the moment so I have posted this directly via a request from email from Shirley Burnham:

There will be an article, by Trevor Craig (Oxfordshire) and Shirley Burnham (Swindon) in the next issue of The Library Campaign magazine – citing evidence which suggests there are deep flaws in the notion that the ‘volunteer model’ for public libraries should be the way forward.

Extracts:
“Libraries are supposed to be completely free from conflicts of interest. Like the Civil Service, they were envisaged as impartial and neutral. But small groups of individuals, given a free hand, will always have views that can compromise those principles. This is why public libraries have been, and should continue to be, a major cornerstone of democracy, untainted by ideology and ‘isms’. ”
“There are legitimate issues of accountability related to all the above. If the local library is doing something wrong who is accountable? In a fully supported library, councillors and officers are responsible. If the library is, instead, led by local co-operation, social entrepreneurship or another group, there is no accountability via the ballot box. As a result, a library could well be used to push volunteers’ own agendas – and who could stop them?”

The same May issue will also include an article by Jim Brooks of Little Chalfont – and, of course, much more! Details + back issues: http://www.librarycampaign.com and – how to join http://www.librarycampaign.com/join-the-library-campaign/

By: Trevor Craig

Trevor Craig — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 20:31:43 +0000

Look at the cipfa stats for the management costs, service support and other expenditure and as Tim says the 28% cuts would be easy to do without closing or cutting the staff in a single library. Its crazy that in every single council up and down the land they duplicate the exact same work. In my own area in Oxfordshire the HQ of the library service is 17 miles away from the HQ of the library service in Bucks and both of these management structures and service support costs are completely duplicated without any sharing. Think of any business that tried to compete in the real world while maintaining this level of duplication, it wouldn’t last five minutes. This is the thing that angers me most about the debate, yes there are massive cuts to councils budgets and there isn’t anything we can do about it because if Labour were in charge we would be having the same conversation but, the fact that officers and ill-informed councillors both in cabinet and the scrutiny committees are too lazy or to stupid to actual question what the officers are telling them and cutting the small branch libraries where the low paid assistants and managers work, not the HQ’s and support services where the high paid “librarians” and bean counters work. Also in the tories case specifically they should be rebuking this big society nonsense that came down from Cameron that he didn’t get a mandate for but with a couple of exceptions they are towing the party line for a policy that has no evidence base for working in libraries, policy should be based on evidence and civil servants are breaking the civil service code by going along unquestioning with this nonsense. I’m very, very angry because the tail is wagging the dog and when these volunteer libraries fail or start to decline as I have seen first hand in Swindon then it will be a further excuse to cut the library service more. Yes some will survive and a few may thrive but not everyone has a pool of intelligent, articulate and wealthy volunteers like some libraries have. We are not going to get out of this economic mess by cutting libraries and making our citizens less well read and intelligent, we should be building more like the competition in the developing countries are doing. Its a shame most councillors don’t read (at least the ones I have met), perhaps that’s the campaign we should be doing, its how the Christians managed to avoid persecution by the Romans after all by converting them.

By: Elizabeth Ash

Elizabeth Ash — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 19:51:38 +0000

In reply to Tim Coates. Thank goodness for Tim Coates - setting the records straight. Thank you.

By: Tim Coates

Tim Coates — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 18:25:11 +0000

It is perfectly possible to achieve 28% savings in the public library service and not close a branch library- in fact even with those cuts it would be possible to add to the service offered – and I have run large businesses.

There was plenty of time to plan – and plenty of time to implement

By: Dandy and Beano

Dandy and Beano — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 08:30:56 +0000

Your “small scale sharing” won’t achieve 28% savings.

By: Laura Swaffield

Laura Swaffield — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 18:22:39 +0000

Just what I think about you!
So what are you saying – it’s vital to close branch libraries, & there is no other possible way to…er… save libraries?
Who are you anyway?

By: Dandy and Beano

Dandy and Beano — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 10:05:15 +0000

It’s like talking to a brick wall.

By: Laura Swaffield

Laura Swaffield — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 21:45:39 +0000

Oh Dandy, what are you on?
Have you ever run a multi-million pound service that says: “Hey, let’s serve our customers better by closing most of our outlets” ?
Have you ever run a multi-million pound service that had its budget hacked by a third, in front-loaded cuts that left no time to plan cuts properly – let alone “speculate to accumulate”. Not a hope.
The huge, lumbering mega-mergers that were advocated in that report had cost lotsa money & as yet given zero returns. Many have run into the ground completely since then.
We advocate small, sensible stuff like sharing a specialist department (law, HR etc) or a contract (maintenance, equipment purchase) with a neighbouring borough, or buying smarter, or filleting the layers of upper managers dealing with “strategy” & other weird stuff.
Small, often part-time, local libraries where people can reach them cost peanuts by comparison.

By: Dandy and Beano

Dandy and Beano — Sat, 20 Apr 2013 18:43:14 +0000

“10 assorted very elaborate schemes ” . I’ve gone back and read these reports, and the Library Campaigner, and it’s clear that this publication was encouraging back office sharing and merging of library authorities. Which is exactly what you are calling for above. Why are these ideas OK when you say them but not Ok when others do? The report that I have found which your article also refers to makes the very valid point that these sort of changes require up front investment to make the changes (which anyone who has run a multi million pound service knows) is inevitable when you talk about that level of change. You have to speculate to accumulate. I suspect you’ve not actually ever run a multi million pound service, hence you have completely misunderstood this point.