(updated August 6, 2002)
A program was held at the Wisconsin Association of Public Libraries (WAPL) Spring Conference on May 2, 2002 that provided an opportunity for attendees to provide input to the Wisconsin Public Library Legislation and Funding Task Force. A summary of those comments is available in Word format by clicking here.
![[Arrow ]](/images/system/arrowright.gif)
Comments of Cheryl Becker
(April 8, 2002)
I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, but I thought
I should mention concerns that are voiced loudly by a couple of our
libraries. I guess both of these fall loosely under the topic of crossover
borrowing.
One is the concern of Kristi Pennebecker, director of the Amherst
library. As you know, Amherst is in Portage County, but not a member of
Portage County Public Library (and does not want to be!) Consequently,
they get no county money for serving county residents, outside the
municipality. Kristi would of course like to get some county money, and
would like there to be a legislative solution. I don't know if this
problem exists in other areas of the state.
The other concern is that of libraries that serve people from other
systems, but get no reimbursement. This happens in several places, but the
most vocal dissatisfaction about this comes from a Spring Green board
member (who is also a Sauk County board member.) Spring Green does serve a
lot of people from Southwest Library System, simply because of their
location.
Anyway, as I said you are probably aware of both of these. But I just
wanted to be able to say if asked about these 2 situations that I have
passed their concerns on to the Task Force. Thanks.
Cheryl Becker, Public Library Consultant
South Central Library System
5250 E. Terrace Drive
Madison, WI 53718-8345
608-246-7973
Comments of Dianne Lueder
(April 10, 2002)
The Menomonie Public Library faces serious financial concerns for the future. The library is a municipal library funded at about $17.50 per capita for the municipal population. The County of Dunn pays substantially less on a per capita basis for funding to our library even though usage by Dunn County residents (not residing in a library service area) accounts for over 50% of our circulation. Funding for the Menomonie Public Library equals approximately $11.50 per capita averaging City of Menomonie and Dunn County funding. This is less than half of the state average for local per capita funding of a public library.
The County of Dunn is going to continue to grow in population, especially in those townships closest to Menomonie. The use by County residents will continue to increase as an overall percentage of our total circulation. Act 150 only requires counties to pay 70% of the cost per circulation and does not require any contribution to the capital costs of serving a larger population than our municipal population. The City Council philosophically resists the idea of asking the City residents to fund the larger building needed because of the use by County residents. Theoretically, the Menomonie Public Library is "big enough" for the municipal population of 14,937. However, it is far to small to serve a Dunn County service population of another 15,000 people.
There has to be a better way of funding public libraries. Has the State considered creating a library district option and establishing a minimum funding rate at which such a district could be created? Library districts work very well in Illinois. The minimum tax rate to qualify for State Per Capita Grants in Illinois is .13 or a .0013 multiplier times assessed valuation. The ability to levy taxes for operations and to levy for a building (with taxpayer approval) is an essential part of library district law.
I hope the task force will consider this option. The laws currently on the books regarding library funding don't work very well. Library patrons have access to service across the state but the burden falls on the library (and the municipalities) with very few tools in the law to aid us to bring about a more equitable funding formula.
Dianne Lueder, Director
Menomonie Public Library.
Comments of David Weinhold
(April 11, 2002)
I talked to Sen. Panzer's office about the revision in the exemption requirements and her aide, Tad, said that there would be no legislation introduced in this session. He did say that the idea that seem to have the most support was one that the Division proposed and the one that I also
advocate: to exclude from the calculation of the exemption threshold any funds raised by the county library tax for capital expenses, e.g. buildings, library automation, bookmobile vehicles, etc. Thus the exemption would only be calculated on the operating funds for the reimbursement of public libraries and for other county library services. I would also advocate that municipal libraries could not use capital expenses
or debt service to qualify for the exemption. Typically, funds for
capital items raised by the county would appear on the levy for a brief time and then disappear, thus creating a flucuation in the exemption requirements for the member libraries.
I know the Ozaukee County proposal also proposed a change in calculating the exemption by making it the average of the three previous years. I do not support that change, since it would put libraries in a double jeopardy
- noncompliance with system membership requirements and losing the county library tax exemption.
I hope this issue was also on your agenda, but I wanted it brought to your attention.
David J. Weinhold, Director
Eastern Shores Library System
4632 S. Taylor Drive
Sheboygan, WI 53081
Comments of Heather Eldred
(April 15, 2002)
Cal,
First I want to thank you for chairing the Wisconsin Public Library Legislation and Funding Task Force. It might provide the energy for the 2003-05 budget request that we need. Then again, if history reasserts itself, it might not. That shouldn't keep the library community from looking at the services we offer and cogitating on strategies that would help us do a better job.
The preliminary issue areas all look like topics that should be addressed.
I would like to strongly suggest that either in issue area #2 (Legislative changes that will assist public libraries and public library systems in responding to the current state budget situations) or #5 (Other potential improvements in legislation relating to public libraries and public library systems), that the topic of fairer distribution of state aid to library systems be talked about - again.
You'll recall a few years back when SRLAAW actually agreed that the distribution formula was unfair and should be changed...but...that it shouldn't be changed until the state funds systems at least at the 11.25% level (WIS. STATS. 43.24(1)(c)).
How long do you (or the study committee) think that systems such as WVLS, NWLS, IFLS, WRLS, etc. should be willing to sit quietly (losing our 'fair' share of the aids dollars) just because the state isn't funding systems at least at the 11.25% level?
I'm sure that none of us who are consistently losing out want our 'richer' colleagues to have to deal with the pain of reduced revenue...however...they don't seem to mind many of their colleagues consistently losing out (even when they agree that it isn't 'fair.') From what Al Z tells me, if the 43.24(1)(c) formula were in place this year, WVLS would have received $170,000 more than we got. That's REAL important to us...
For the record, over the years I have pointed this disparity out to WVLS area legislators and to Governor McCallum's office...of course I get nowhere because northern legislators don't have much clout...
Please put this issue on the list of discussion items.
Thanks.
Heather
Heather Eldred, Director
WI Valley Library Service
300 N First Street
Wausau WI 54403
heldred@wvls.lib.wi.us
Comments of Katherine Newman
(May 8, 2002)
Dear Mr. Potter:
As stated to you during the conference, I do not think that we really have "4 pages of problems".
What is most upsetting is that the Task Force was mis-directed; it SHOULD HAVE focused on our fine service and our FEW problems and their solutions.
It is important to remember that in general, our service from a consumer point-of-view is excellent. Our systems are fine and do a good job. Possibly the one-county systems could be revisited at some future point.
To many of us the problem of crossover borrowing is important and needs a good solution. After listening to you, the Chair of WLTA Greg Crews and I had a discussion. We have a plan that we hope will be advanced by WLA leadership.
It is very simple: The legislature would provide an annual EXTRA sum of money, one figure that would be the same all over Wisconsin. For the large libraries it would pay for crossover borrowing; for the small ones it would mean improvements. It would be indexed to inflation and regular small raises would be part of the plan.
Maintaining sufficient funding levels is certainly a major concern and all of us should strive to get this point across to our inept legislature and make sure they understand how essential our service is.
I also think that WLA leadership should offer some training for getting along with elected officials, especially for our younger and newer members. We all need to know how to both soothe and inspire them.
I also know that Wisconsin communities in general treasure their libraries; advocacy in the trustee position is a given, and absolutely NOT a problem.
Greg and I would hope for some support and help from other WLA members.
Thank you for your attention; feel free to contact me should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Katherine Newman
Washington County Library Service Board
Comments of David Weinhold
(May 22, 2002)
After listening to the discussion yesterday [at the SRLAAW meeting] on the Task Force recommendation about Library System size, I reviewed Issue Paper #6 and ruminated on the recommendations made by the Task Force. (Ruminating comes from my agricultural heritage.)
I am not in support of the recommendations. But I do not oppose the idea that systems will merge and system boundaries will change. I believe you don't need to make any changes in the statutes or provide requirements for a certain system size to cause those mergers or boundary changes.
Changes in system boundaries will occur on their own over time as libraries and library system boards see the need for a change. As you may be aware, ESLS has explored the potential of a merger with Manitowoc Calumet Library System. This exploration led to a study by MCLS on merging. The study concluded that MCLS could meet the needs of their libraries and meet the state requirements without such a merger. However this exploration did lead to greater cooperation between ESLS and MCLS, such as cosponsorship of workshops, cooperation on a telecommunications network, and cooperative planning on a shared library automation system.
As stated yesterday, systems which extend their shared library automation systems to libraries outside of their system, may explore changes in system boundaries in order to provide a cohesive set of services to the libraries. If libraries in an adjacent county wanted to participate in EasiCat, I think it would make a lot of sense to look at a system boundary change. This is because our major system services - cataloging, delivery, and interlibrary loan - are integral to the shared library automation system.
The lack of sufficient funding for library systems over the years has lead to other initiatives which may meet the same purpose as merging systems. For example the Wisconsin Public Library Consortium provides a method for public libraries and library systems to collaborate and share in projects that would be too expensive to undertake locally. Our discussions yesterday, would indicate that the Consortium could be expanding its role in this regard.
One of the recommendations in Issue Paper #6 was to provide financial incentives or support for library systems to merge or change their boundaries. Perhaps, we could encourage more cooperative services among systems if financial incentives are developed for such purposes.
Doug Baker was the lone voice in dissenting to this proposal yesterday. But his comments gave me pause on whether further legislation was needed to bring about an optimal system size.
I am encourage by the Task Force's work on these various issues. I commend their work and the support you provide them.
Sincerely,
David J. Weinhold, Director
Eastern Shores Library System
4632 S. Taylor Drive
Sheboygan, WI 53081
voice: 920-208-4900 x812
fax: 920-208-4901
e-mail: weinhold@esls.lib.wi.us
Comments of Doug Baker (responding to David Weinhold's comments, above)
(May 23, 2002)
Thanks David!
I really wish I could have presented my thoughts so clearly. Wisconsin is a state of contrasts, as I know from my experience in the North and the South. I strongly believe that one solution does not fit all. That's why we have local boards running systems.
What truly frustrates me most, however, is that we are reduced to talking about the issue of merging systems as a way to achieve economies.
I truly believe that library systems have maxed out their capacity to tap into state funds. We seem to be unwilling to look squarely at this issue. Systems are no longer going to be able to do all the things they have in the past, and the State's mandates of systems must be changed accordingly.
We've spent too much time talking to ourselves and Tinkerbell (you had to be there on Tuesday [at the SRLAAW meeting] to get this). What things that we do have the maximum return for the end user? Those are the mandates to keep and fund.
Doug Baker
Phone: 262.605.2160 x1024
Fax: 262.605.2170
dbaker@kenosha.lib.wi.us
Comments of Kristi Pennebecker
(May 28, 2002)
Hi,
Our library is exempt from the County Library taxes because our village choose to maintain an independent library. I am aware that this is somewhat unique in the state. We continue to have cross-border borrowing issues that remain unaddressed, I believe this is not because it is any less urgent but because it involves so few of us. Two-thirds of our circulation is to patrons outside of our village limits, we have never received any reimbursement from our county library for this (I have asked). We are very happy to provide library service to these people--they are our friends and neighbors and we will never refuse them. We also send for numerous ILL for these patrons, some we order continuously for in LP every two weeks. Our library needs more revenue but the village (understandably) feels that it supports us adequately for our sized village. We serve a much larger population than we receive support from. I have been anxiously waiting cross-border legislation for many years, the last legislation passed did not include us as our problem exists within county borders. Please help pass legislation that will correct this situation. Currently, I believe the only answer to the situation is to try to form a joint library which I believe would not only require a lot of hard work but would also create hard feelings with the county.
Could any business exist when 2/3 's of its efforts are given free of charge? Would not the paying 1/3 rebel?
Thank you for your efforts in behalf of our library.
Kristi Pennebecker
Library Director
Lettie W. Jensen Library (Amherst)
Comments of Doug Baker (responding to a question from Mary Bethke about possible changes in library system mandates)
(May 28, 2002)
Mary-
I’m happy to reply. System success can truly only be proven by the success of their member libraries to meet their customers’ needs, and nothing else. So we must focus on the direct needs of the library customer. Each mandate on systems can be evaluated that way. Then each mandate that’s left needs to be prioritized, so that we know what goes and what stays when money gets tight. This may be more than a bit of heresy, but here goes.
Open access: Change the mandate to require open access to good quality library service. This doesn’t require that everyone needs to use every library in their system, it only requires that they be able to use one of the best ones, probably the one closest to them, but not always. We save a lot of grief and money with this change; and we still guarantee every Wisconsin citizen access to quality library service. The pain we cause to move from requiring access to at least one good quality library to having access to all libraries is not worth the gain.
Change the focus of all mandates intended to promote resource sharing: that includes ILL, reference and referral, shared automation, and delivery. Resource sharing for its own sake is not necessarily good; and what follows is a complicated explanation of why.
I started my career in charge of a teletype interlibrary loan network in Iowa. I then moved to coordinate interlibrary cooperation statewide. I was acutely aware at the time that this business was marginal to the primary operations of the libraries we served. And we were very careful to enforce the rule that no one on the network would clutter up that network with requests to borrow books they already owned. In fact, the nationally accepted ILL guidelines then and now state this prohibition very clearly.
In Iowa, I learned that a book requested among public libraries would be “owned but out” 70% of the time; while it was 5% for academic libraries. An ILL system that has a high chance for success in academic libraries was adopted by public libraries with a 70% failure rate.
Unlike then, we now know whether a book is in or not. On a library by library basis, 70% of the time, it still isn’t. We are ignoring this problem, because it is hidden by the fact that when you search union catalogs, you will eventually locate a copy that’s in. We say that’s a good thing! But what our customers need is still “owned but out” at a high percentage of libraries. This speaks to local collection deficiencies that need prompt attention.
Over time, librarians in most states have done a lot of planning and have expended a lot of effort to improve shared automated systems, interlibrary loan, and delivery. We have followed this god as if it is primary to our mission. Yet I check my records, and I see that what gets exchanged among libraries in KCLS is only about 5% of our business. I worry that it will grow when it shouldn’t.
Our customers much prefer finding the book on the shelf to waiting to get it from another location; so we need to focus more effort into meeting that direct customer need in the first place. It is at this critical point of meeting immediate customer needs, where libraries risk losing public support. Once you’ve loaned that book to another library, it now becomes “owned but out” at your library. As I mentioned before, academic libraries don’t have a problem with this; but public libraries with much higher turnover in their collections are filling an ILL request at the very real risk of denying that item to their own customer. Then when their customer asks for the item, they ILL it, and it leaves the shelf at another library. For that reason, we should not ILL something to a library that already owns it.
Remember having the book there in the first place is at least ten times better than making your customer wait. Easy access to books from other libraries channels resources away from meeting primary customer needs at the point of service, and it camouflages the inadequacies of many libraries. Much is made of the fact that the big libraries get as much out of sharing arrangements as do the small libraries. This is true in raw numbers, but as a percentage of total business, smaller libraries are much more dependent on this system than the large ones.
Wouldn’t we be better off putting this money toward collection building at viable libraries? Shouldn’t we own up to our professional duty to identify what libraries are independently viable and help them to be all they can be? And no matter how politically unsavory it is, we need to call less than viable libraries something else and treat them differently.
So my first point is that we may be doing a disservice to our small libraries by channeling precious few dollars this way. Let’s help them get the needed space, shelving, and collections in the first place. That’s a big turnabout in system mandates, but it truly is library development; and what we are doing now may actually be retarding library development.
I see systems working to create big consolidated catalogs, so that all libraries can have access to all the collections in the union catalog. Milwaukee County is a good example of this, and it is quickly spreading to other systems. Milwaukee County has a long tradition of treating the collections of all their libraries as one big collection. The upshot of this has been another inefficient result. Customers at any library in Milwaukee County can initiate an interlibrary loan as if it were a request at their home library. This happens even if the home library owns a copy of the title. And when this happens, it initiates an expensive process at the holding library, where someone must retrieve it from the shelf, route it, put it on a truck, and have it delivered to the requesting library. In Milwaukee, they don’t even call this an interlibrary loan. They call it something else, even though it is ILL.
My second point is that for big libraries we’re doing a lot of unnecessary chasing around of our collective book stock. All in the name of cooperation, we have established networks under system auspices, indirectly using system money, that initiate a $30 per item process to get a book to a library that already owns it. These problems can be resolved with procedural changes which would reduce costs, freeing up money to have extra copies of that book on the shelf at the home library in the first place. Plus, as in the case of Milwaukee County, a system has been encouraged, which actively and unnecessarily fans the fires of inter governmental strife.
What is happening in Milwaukee County now is the logical conclusion of all our efforts in the rest of this state. I don’t think we really want to go there. I know I don’t.
Doug Baker
Phone: 262.605.2160 x1024
Fax: 262.605.2170
dbaker@kenosha.lib.wi.us
Comments of David Polodna
(May 28, 2002)
Bob Dylan wrote in one of his songs, "If there's an original thought out there, I could use it right now."
Tom Ballard presented and documented in the mid-1980s most of what Doug Baker had to say in his message to Mary Bethke. At the time, the majority of the library profession discounted Ballard's ideas. There is truth and fallacy in these ideas. While there is certainly a trade-off in library service by advancing cooperation rather than local development, we have seen improved library service in this state (at least in my region of the state) since the 1980s and it has not caused most library users to feel deprived. While shared automation does keep materials traveling much more than some of us would like, the public has eagerly and happily embraced the new capabilities. And frankly, I don't hear the libraries complaining either.
After sitting through two Task Force meetings and then through the SRLAAW meeting it strikes me that we are again mired down in the same old set of ideas, from one side or the other. These ideas have been battered around for the twenty years that I have been in library work and though they show up every time we discuss long range planning or the future, they do not seem to take us anywhere. Meanwhile, we are unable to come together for short term success with our state government. Since it has been suggested that "short-term" is all that state government addresses, this seems like a monumental failure to me. The Task Force needs to pull together a strategy for the upcoming biennial budget deliberations -- that is the pressing concern. The discussions about discouraging, if not penalizing, poorer libraries; reconstituting systems; constructing new mandates (be they for systems or counties); or taking the state money and giving it directly to libraries rather than funding library systems are moving the library community farther apart, not closer together. And that means they are moving us away from, not nearer to, a solution.
Boy, if there's an original thought out there, the library community in Wisconsin could use it right now. This exercise of lining up oxen for selective goring is counterproductive.
David
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
David Polodna, Director
Winding Rivers Library System
Phone: 608-789-7119
E-mail: dlp@wrlsweb.org Fax: 608-789-7106
Comments of Alan Engelbert
(June 3, 2002)
All:
At its meeting of May 29th the Manitowoc-Calumet Library System Board of Trustees adopted a motion opposing the recommendations of the Public Library Legislation and Funding Task Force growing out of Issue Paper #6 on Library System Size and Organization.
In 1998-99, MCLS conducted an in depth study of its economic viability, its ability to provide services desired by member libraries, and the necessity/desirability of merging with one or more adjacent library system. The study confirmed MCLS' viability, pointed out directions which the consultants believed the system needed to move in order to respond to member libraries needs, particularly in the area of technology, and stated that there was little or nothing to be gained in terms of economies of scale from merging MCLS with one or more library system.
It may be that there are other parts of the state where merger or reconfiguration of system boundaries makes sense. It may make sense for MCLS at some point in the future. The MCLS Board is confident that systems will recognize these situations and act accordingly without the necessity of forcing change through legislative fiat. In fact, system borders have changed significantly over the last several years and probably will further evolve as conditions dictate. MCLS believes that conditions should dictate system borders, however, not legislation.
The Trustees were also quite concerned about the recommendation that determination of system boundaries only be subject to the approval of the participating county boards. We believe that the boards of the participating libraries and their municipalities must have a direct say over what system they are a part of and do not feel that the existing standard requires modification. While the existing standard makes changing from one system to another fairly difficult, we believe it should be fairly difficult. As recent events show, changing system boundaries is clearly possible to do under the existing standard.
Thank you for your attention in this matter.
Alan Engelbert
Comments of Sandy Robbers
(June 6, 2002)
In the future as more and more libraries are in shared systems, what will be the role of the resource library? The MORE shared system really is our resource 'library" for interlibrary loan and we are using Internet resources, electronic databases and other libraries (hospital library) for reference in addition to the resource library. So does there need to be a new definition of a resource library for systems? And is this an issue for the task force to consider?
RE: Position paper #6 about size of systems
But large systems only work if they have enough funding for the number of libraries that they serve. Right now, the level of funding for NWLS and IFLS are not adequate even though we are the largest systems in the state. (I am assuming that Joan would agree with me). In fact because of the distances, we need more funds to compensate for travel and to install expensive distance ed facilities than smaller systems. But that is not the way the formula works.
Thanks for listening.
Sandy Robbers
robbers@ifls.lib.wi.us
Director
Indianhead Federated Library System
1538 Truax Blvd.
Eau Claire, WI 54701
715-839-5082 Extension 16
FAX: 715-839-5151
Comments of Sandy Robbers
(June 20, 2002)
In the summary of the third meeting, I notice that the task force is recommending using LSTA funds for encouraging systems to merge. I don't think that this is the kind of activity for which LSTA funds should be used. I would like to see these funds used more for activities which benefit local libraries and which help us introduce new technology or services, not fix public library system structural problems. Using LSTA funds would just punish larger, more rural systems which are underfunded already under the current system funding formula. Besides, mergers should produce some economy of scale savings just by reducing redundancy.
By the way, this is not a comment on the pros or cons of merging systems, just on the use of LSTA funds for encouraging merging. I really don't have an opinion on whether merging systems is a great idea of not.
Sandy Robbers
robbers@ifls.lib.wi.us
Director
Indianhead Federated Library System
1538 Truax Blvd.
Eau Claire, WI 54701
715-839-5082 Extension 16
FAX: 715-839-5151
Comments of Mark Morse
(June 20, 2002)
At their meeting this morning, the Board of Trustees of the L.E. Phillips Memorial Public Library voted unanimously to request that the Task Force on Library Legislation consider and recommend changes in state statutes that would clarify the responsibilities of counties to reimburse libraries located in other counties that serve their residents. In addition, the Board feels strongly that these recommendations should include clear requirements for counties to make these reimbursement payments as well as methods of enforcement or penalty if counties fail to do so.
This has proven to be a very difficult issue among counties and libraries in our area and this reimbursement revenue is especially important to libraries at a time when the state fiscal situation is so uncertain.
Thank you for passing our views and requests on to the Task Force on Library Legislation.
Sincerely,
Mark Morse, Library Director
L.E. Phillips Memorial Public Library, Eau Claire
Comments of Peter Hamon
(June 27, 2002)
Item number 7 (concerning issue Paper #10) is of concern to South Central Library System. It calls for all system aids above the 9.5% index level to be devoted to paying for "net crossover usage" (i.e. for net walk-in usage of a library by the citizens of another city which also operates a library.) This payment is to be made at the rate of $.50 per circulation transaction.
Since we are now receiving state aids at about 9% of the previous year's public library expenditures (as opposed to the 13% specified in statute), the chosen 9.5% level would, for all practical purposes, freeze system aids pretty much at their current inadequate level forever. Our system members appear to want us to invest increasing sums to continue automation support, to cope with ever expanding delivery volume and cost, to purchase database access on behalf of all member libraries, to invest in a wide range of new and experimental technologies, to provide an ever widening span of technological training, to operate a greatly expanded advocacy program, to ensure that our consultative efforts reach out on a regular basis to every library, and to do all the rest of the 209 charges identified in our member and trustee created strategic plan. Without added funding, this is not possible.
Furthermore, most of the walk-in crossover borrowing problems in our system area that this provision is intended to address are already solved through local funding. If system aids were used to address these costs as opposed to being spent for other services, counties could cut library budgets accordingly, but this would simply reduce the funding available to libraries in general, and not improve service in any way.
In addition to walk-in crossover traffic, South Central member libraries also share vast amounts of material (about 1.3 million items per year) with each other through the interlibrary loan and delivery processes. Our libraries would be thrilled to receive funds for every book that they put into delivery to serve a customer of another library. This provision does not address that need.
Apparently some of the thinking behind this proposal is that if you put more state dollars into the hands of the local library, you will empower that library to purchase those services, and only those services, that they really want from the system. Thus systems will become ever more responsive to the needs of their members. There is certainly truth to this, but there are also two major flaws in the hypothesis.
First, when dollars come in from outside sources, local libraries often have a very hard time generating local funds, because to municipal officials, funding the library easily becomes "someone else's" responsibility. Quite a few years ago, when South Central still gave out direct grants to member libraries, we discovered that in some cases the grant of a few hundred or a few thousand dollars represented the entire book budget for the library in question. The city fathers couldn't be budged. It wasn't their problem. Let the state meet the need. Provision 7 appears be an easy route back to that way of thinking.
Finally, our system law contains a "same service" requirement. This means that, with the single exception of some in-library programs, in order to be a system member, a library must offer the same services to everyone in the system area that they do to their own taxpayers. A library purchasing a service (let us say, a remotely accessible database) with funds provided by their own taxpayers might find it very difficult to justify paying for the extension of this service to all 700,000 residents of South Central. Thus provision 7 and the existing "same service" requirement would appear to be mutually incompatible.
Peter Hamon, Director
South Central Library System
Comments of Gary Olson (to Task Force member Ann Hokanson)
(July 1, 2002)
Hi Ann,
I just wanted to reiterate my hope that the DLTCL legislation task force can address the issue of equity in payment of 70% reimbursements for service to non-residents. I feel it should be a simple straightforward standard across ALL borders, including county and library system borders.
Currently Park Falls PL has billed Ashland [$35,321], Iron [$5,975], Sawyer [$1,742], Vilas [$775] counties for 70% reimbursement for 2001 service. These counties have ignored our bills, because they don't HAVE to pay them.
So when Rib Lake PL bills Price County for service to our residents (also across a system border) the Price County Library Board and the County Board of Supervisors is doubtful about paying, if other counties won't pay our libraries.
Not receiving reasonable reimbursement may force Park Falls PL to being charging for service to out-of-system users. We do not want to take this step, but reductions in shared revenues will make it difficult not to.
Without an equitable funding mechanism, there is a negative pressure on our ability to serve our natural service populations. Local governments have agreements for other services (such as fire, police, ambulance, water, etc.) that cross arbitrary political boundaries. The law should be amended to create a uniform standard for reimbursement for library service as well.
I know you believe this should be the case, and I hope you can make the point strongly in your meetings. I believe that the vast majority of IFLS libraries support this approach, as well most other public libraries in the state. Price County libraries, the Price County Library Board, and even (I believe) the Price County Board would welcome this approach.
Thanks,
Gary Olson, Administrator
PRICE COUNTY LIBRARY SERVICE
121 North Fourth Avenue Park Falls, WI 54552-1112
715-762-3121 fax 715-762-2286
olsong@ifls.lib.wi.us
Comments of Dianne Lueder
(July 24, 2002)
I am encouraged by the recommendations updated 7/17/02 regarding District Public Libraries. Having worked with district libraries in Illinois for twenty years I truly believe that the best funded libraries are those that go directly to the public for their support. The public values and appreciates library service and is willing to fund it if the services provided meet their needs. In a district structure the board and staff can focus on library service because the need to lobby with multiple funding agencies with differing agendas is no longer necessary.
Thank you to the Task Force for all of your hard work.
Dianne Lueder, Director
Menomonie Public Library
Action of WLTA Board
(August 2, 2002)
At their August 2, 2002 meeting, the Wisconsin Library Trustee Association (WLTA) Board passed a motion opposing the following preliminary recommendation of the Task Force: "Require that by the year 2007 all public library systems have a minimum population of 300,000 or include at least four counties."
Comments on issues related to the Task Force's work can be made available on this web page by contacting:
Mike Cross, Consultant for Public Administration and Funding
Division for Libraries, Technology, and Community Learning
Public Library Development
125 S. Webster St., P.O. Box 7841, Madison WI 53707-7841
608-267-9225, fax 608-266-2529
michael.cross@dpi.wi.gov
Posted August, 2002
For questions about this information, contact Michael H. Cross (608) 267-9225
Last updated on 2/25/2008 12:51:43 PM
Home
About Us