We have been struggling in Dartmouth with our library funding and state certification. There are several conflicting interests between state requirements and recent developments in our Dartmouth libraries. Here are the requirements for state certification.
The Dartmouth Public Library must be open at least 63 hours per week. See 605 CMR 401 (3) & 78 MGL 19b
The Dartmouth Public Library must allocate a minimum of 13% of its "total annual budget for books and periodicals." See 605 CMR 401 (5)
There is a formula for determining minimum funding. 78 MGL 19B states that
"No city or town shall receive any money under this section in any year when the appropriation of said city or town for free public library services is below an amount equal to the average of its appropriation for free public library service for the three years immediately preceding, increased by two and one-half per cent of said average."
In Dartmouth, we have taken several measures to reduce costs at our public library. These include closing two branch libraries and reducing the hours and appropriations of the libraries.
The law requires us to spend 2-1/2% more than the average of the past three years appropriation while containing no provision for taking into account the closing of some of the branches. The state grant amounts are modest ($40K) but our budget shortfall is large ($325K). So we find ourselves between a rock and a hard place. We must cut costs to keep the town solvent but we must spend more in order to keep our certification. I have been told that our library lends more books to other libraries than are lent to us. I hope that the state library board would take that into account at certification time as well but the law seems clear. You can read the MBLC's Waiver Letter
There is an accommodation policy to allow reduced hours and materials expenditure which results in lowered grant amounts.
Posts
48 comments:
Yes Bill, our library lends to other communities more than it borrows. The law you cite is problematic. It seems that we will be punished for delivering the same services at a lower cost.
Also,my understanding is that certification has less to do with being able to exchange books with other communities than it does with receiving grant money. We will NOT receive grant money from the state if we are decertified. As I understand it, the communities we exchange with make the decision to exchange with us. They would be foolish to exclude us. I'm not sure what the implications are to the funding of the exchange program without certification are though. Perhaps someone can clarify.
Our Priv. committee has run into this roadblock. The law as written clearly doesn't allow a library to retain certification if more and more money is not spent on it each year. Even if we figured out how to save money through efficiencies and still retain or even improve services we wouldn't meet the letter of the law.
Perhaps as more and more communities "catch up" to us with this problem the law could be changed because it clearly can punish a community for trying to improve its financial picture.
It is purely a matter of discretion as to whether the certified libraries in other communities let a non-certified library participate in the borrowing feature. We were told that historically the answer has been no, but maybe that will change given the economic situation everywhere.
Another option is that maybe we could join with our neighboring communities to set up our own borrowing system. It is only a matter of time before they feel the same pressures, as many of them are starting the financial scramble that we have been fighting.
There is also a law that provides for the sharing of costs for common services between communities, or running a joint library. MGL Chapter 78: Section 11
These are all things that need to be explored.
Or we could spend the approximately $20/year - $5/quarter per household per year to keep the library certified.
Anonymous - Please explain your number estimate. The library is not actually certified now, it is operating under a waiver. I have been told that even if the Gen. Gov. question and the library question pass that will still not be enough to meet the spending requirement for certification. Do you know something different?
frankg - the library director, during one of her presentations at a school forum last Thursday said that while the library will not meet all certification requirements for funding, she feels a waiver would be likely becasue they would in her words 'be moving in the right direction' and show community support for the library system - last part paraphrased as memory fails me her exact words.
Ok, that is basically what I heard. That is not exactly the same thing as what you first posted, there are a bunch of "ifs" that go with it.
I agree that it would put us closer but a waiver is not a guaranteed thing. In addition it would require us to be able to close the gap in the near future because at some point the waivers will stop. The library budget is currently about $200K short of where the State would want us to be spending, and that is based on this year, not FY09 with any proposed budget cuts.
seems to be splitting hairs a bit frankg but I concede passing the override is not a guarantee of a waiver however it's a darn cite more likely than a 'no vote'. Unlike many in this town I do put a great deal of faith and trust in the leadership of our library. If, after passage of the library override questions the library loses its certification it will be through no fault of hers.
I also don't see having to close the funding gap in future years as a bad thing as a well funded library is a must have in my opinion in a town of our size in the 21st cenury.
I just try to be realistic about these things. Even if the override passes for them this year I think it is unlikely that in the following years they will get the extra funding they need. Compared to other Town needs the library will always be a lower priority during a budget crunch, which is not to say that it is a low priority.
Don't forget that the requirement is that their budget grow each and every year, which is in direct conflict with trying to create efficiencies in the Town.
Whether we like it or not, with the budget strained, and going to be more strained in the future I think it prudent to explore other ways to provide a proper library service to the community. That is why I suggested some of the things above.
Wouldn't you agree that if we can give the residents a very good library service while saving some money, that it would be a good idea to explore?
absolutely frankg, but like so many things the 'devil is in the details'
Privatization of the library can be a double edged sword from the little bit of research I have done on the matter. While those 'devilish details' get worked out and presented for proper discussion I think it prudent to let the library have some breathing room - the cost is cheap enough. The alternative is likely a de-certified library and all that entails and we would not yet know all the benefits or pitfalls of privatization.
I agree, privatization is a big step, but I was mostly referring to the other ideas such as sharing costs and services with other communities. These things have not been explored, yet are encouraged by the State.
I have had a lot of discussions regarding privatization of the library, and most of the answers have been good. I was worried about losing control and that doesn't happen. They basically provide a way to run that business with a different model, but we still call the shots on what we want.
I also view privatization as a "last resort" type of thing, but we need to stay aware of the cost savings possible. If the library budget gets decimated we may have no choice if we want to keep Southworth open.
I worked for a company that did a lot of out-sourcing, and some of it worked, some of it didn't. I am well aware of the "details caveat".
In the meantime I would like to see our library folks have discussions with other library folks from other communities to try and create their own new model.
frankg-my son's godfather and his wife went thru the Polaroid ordeal so I know well what happened to all those that worked for that company so I do feel for you.
Would'nt you agreee that while these 'details' are being looked at and worked out that allowing the library some breathing room in the form of this years override makes sense?
It seems in so many of the discussions on this blog, nothing personal frankg, there is no compromise stance. On the library specifically (it is this threads topic anyway) I would agree that vetting the privatization route makes a lot of sense. Then make a full presentation to the community for further discussion and go from there. If it makes sense I'd jump on with both feet, but there seems lttle stomach 'on the other side' to even consider override if for no other reason than to allow time for this research to go on its natural course. It always seems to come down to 1. no override 2. here's how we should do this becasue we cant afford it the 'old' way. Meanwhile anyhing good about the 'old way' is lost as buildings crumble, employees look elsewhere, values erode and so on.
Well, if they worked in the N.B. plant I am reasonably sure I know them.
I always try to keep an open mind, and also always try to get perspectives from as many people as possible. To me understanding the pulse of the community is very important.
Having been closely associated with all the leaders over the last few years I can understand the reluctance to compromise. I personally like them all but there has not been real attitude change about just what is necessary. We can't sleep-walk through this.
We have to stop being reactive and start being proactive. There has been a lot of talk about change but it is time to stop talking and get to work. The work needed is extremely difficult but entirely necessary.
Irregardless of whether anyone did anything wrong or not, things need to change, and unfortunately the change I see happening is only because of it being forced. Taxpayers have little control except over who they elect and what they vote for, so there is a lot of frustration. Withholding money has been the lever many/most have grabbed hold of.
I have always said that I live in the gray area, so nothing is all right or all wrong. I am convinced that if we didn't have the problems it would be business as usual, no one would be looking for change. I have repeatedly heard leaders say that everyone has done everything just right. From what I have learned this is clearly not true. They haven't done everything wrong either.
They have done a good job with the short-term managing but have been lacking for the long-term. Some simple projections would have gone a long way. Contract benefits, not bidding out health care, raiding funds figuring that things would get better later, there are many examples.
Let me again say that the "withholding money" lever is the only thing driving the bus for progress at the moment. There is no confidence in the leaders to do things without that pressure. Whether they would or wouldn't is not really important because people believe they wouldn't. Perception is reality.
With all that said, I don't want to see the Town crumble. I am on record as being supportive of the $1.5M Gen. Gov. question, and am thinking about others. With that question that keeps the Town running for another year, and better than this year. To me that is appropriate breathing room, for everything, not just the library. That is a compromise to allow things to progress and get proof of accomplishments, without allowing anyone to get too comfortable.
Believe me when I tell you that this town just cannot continue to exist if things continue as they have been. You and I both know that override after override passing just will not happen. People will spoon-feed the Town more money but it has to be a little at a time while proof of progress is displayed. That is the reality of things. I wouldn't give an alcoholic a bottle just because he promised me he wouldn't drink it. Old habits are hard to break.
This Town, and others, need structural change, and the sooner the leaders really believe that and get to it, the better. It HAS to happen, it is just a matter of when. The leaders still live for the short-term, and getting a large chunk of money will absolutely slow progress. I am VERY sure of this, and it is not because there are any bad people involved. It is easy to run a town when there is plenty of money, just like it was easy for Polaroid. When a crisis hits you are forced to learn as you go, BUT make significant change. Our leaders are still learning this, and more importantly, how to do it.
Well frankg I'll leave it at this, I agree change must be made but I disagree that this is the way to go about it. Without many changes on the state and federal levels as well as some of the changes you describe at the local level we will be standing alone and left hanging out to dry.
Not a place I want to be.
After the passing of the split rate the avg net increase in our taxes if we pass the whole override is about $130 -150 and you say we cannot exist if we continue to fund the libraries? I think you are a victim of your own scare tactics. A wee bit pessimistic with a touch of doomsday if you ask me.
FrankG,
I have strong concerns about the privatization of library services. I do not believe that the services provided by a private business will be comparable to those provided by the public library.
There may be ways to build in efficiencies w/o hurting services. While I don't have the answers, I'm happy to speak with you about this. You can find my contact info on the UMass Library website if you're interested.
In the meantime, I strongly endorse question 2. The library needs and deserves our support. And if I'm reading the numbers correctly, it will only cost the average homeowner $4.20 per year.
Anonymous - First, you have to look beyond the current year. Even with the override for the library they are still around $200K short of "full" funding by the State requirement. Given the projected shortfalls for the entire Town where do you see that money coming from?
Second, the split rate is not guaranteed beyond this year, while overrides are forever. If the split goes away and all the overrides pass that results in a tax bill increase of $400 to $500 from the current year, and that will stay with us. Given that 2 SB members were not in favor of the split, 1 was reluctant, and another wanted a lower split, all it takes is for 1 to flip and the split goes away. Again, one meeds to consider things beyond this year.
Third, I don't mind having a reasonable discussion with anyone, even if they don't agree with me, but I don't like it when my words get twisted. Please show me where I said "we cannot exist if we continue to fund the libraries". All I alluded to is that the Town cannot continue if the plan is to keep spending more than we take in, and with that scenario it is unlikely that the library will get the funding they need.
It is called reality, not pessimism and doomsday.
Matt, we all have strong concerns about privatizing library services, or anything else for that matter. We are just looking for options that we may be forced into to keep some of the services at all, or save some money on one service that could be used for another service that couldn't be out-sourced.
We are still gathering data and asking lots of questions, especially with regard to the library, but we are assured that they don't actually run the library, that is left to the locals. What they do is run the business part of the library, behind the scenes.
We are told it would be transparent to the patron, except that they guarantee more hours open than we can currently afford.
I will be glad to look you up and discuss this with you.
Dartmouth is famous again...
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/03/20/2_towns_weigh_privatizing_libraries?mode=PF
Bill,
Just to clarify a few points on the libraries.
Yes, the Dartmouth Library is a net lender, we lend more than we borrow and we do receive funding from our region because of this.
De-Certification will have a direct impact on Dartmouth residents as it will eliminate most of our resource sharing, although it does also affect state aid and grant money. The communities we exchange with have already voted to not lend to decertified libraries - this happened recently as Bridgewater was decertified in February. The only nearby communities that will still lend are Rehoboth and Swansea. Communities vote as to whether to lend to a decertified library or not - they do not vote on a case by case basis.
The library is certified now as it has received a waiver. A yes vote on questions 2 and 5 will bring us to within 35,000 of our required appropriation requirement. At this level, we can be assured of receiving a waiver without reservation from the Board of Library Commissioners. Questions please call the library - Sincerely - Director of Libraries
I am voting for the police, the $1.5 for level services, the library, and the debt exclusion for ten years.
I am also voting for Bill Trimble. I live in N.D. and my library is closed, I have to drive all the way to S. D. for a book and then back to return it. With the price of gas....it gets expensive! I hope that our town will get healthy again and maybe N.D. will have a library when it does.
SD citizen - good luck ndmom I hope the town wakes up too and you get a decent library back in the north end of town. I'll be doing my part on April 1.
As I read through the comments here and the letters to the editor in the paper there is a common thread. One assumes that everyone wants a library. Maybe not all of us do. Maybe we don't think it is a priority and would rather see the money put elsewhere. Then again there are those individuals who always assume that what they want is what's important. I guess we'll see April 1st.
OK BillT - you've deleted the thread on Barry's comments on the library. Why is that?
Are you upset too that Mr. Walker has stated on the local news that 'The library is porrly managed and fiscally irresponsible'. Those were Mr. Walker's quotes. I'm still curious when Mr Walker became a library expert too?
Bill, what is your stand on the libraries? Do you, like Barry, believe they are poorly run, and fiscally irresponsible? If so, what is the evidence of this?
I post here and lay out my thinking. I don't need anyone else to speak for me.
Mr Walker has his view and I believe he is entitled to it. If you have a disagreement with him, then address it to him.
We discuss here and try to inform and convince. I do not think that personal attacks move the discussion forward.
I think we need to set priorities and, at times, those priorities may cause us to run up against things like the library certification requirements. We need to decide if we want, or can afford, to continue as before and the consequences if we do. That discussion has not concurred and instead we have emotional rhetoric.The public needs to be clearly informed about what our fiscal situation is and they can then make an informed decision.
While I truly appreciate your effort Bill to move discussions forward that last post just sounds more like political rhetoric from a person who has no real experience in solving problems such as these. Which leads me to a question Bill what experience have you had in government management, have you worked for a town or city, have you served on any town or city boards or committee's, have you held any elected office before?
BillT - it is clear from the public support that Mr. Walker has given you in addition to his political endorsement and that of the CFRG along with your refusal to repudiate some of the more outlandish things that comes from Mr Walker and the CFRG that you are in agreement with their stands. This includes the latest ridiculous assertions that Mr Walker made on behalf of the cfrg that you now refuse to disavow. Instead you are choosing once again to switch the subject to 'living within our means, setting priorities etc.'
What Mr Walker said on ch 10 last night has no basis in fact and will undoubtedly be the cause of many lost votes for the library. For you to stand by and let it pass saying 'take it up with Mr. Walker' is another sign of a typical politician, passing the buck.
Regarding the quote from channel 10. What I was trying to convey to the reporter was that current Ma general laws concerning libraries do not encourage efficiency. In fact, they punish it. I did not see the news piece but it appears that this reporter was trying to sensationalize my statements and I sent her an e-mail blasting her for it. We need to move away from the divisiveness. It is time for the people to vote. Regardless of their choices, there is plenty of work to do after the election.
March 22, 2008 11:41 AM
I don't want any town leader telling people how to think. This kind of thing has been going on for the past year or so. Our town leaders are going to tell us what is best because we don't know any better. We shouldn't listen to Barry Walker because we are so ignorant that we can't tell the difference between fact and fiction. Please stop assuming the voters aren't informed enough to know who is telling the truth and who is trying to pull one over on them. People are so tired of all the covering up and damage control displayed by Gagne & Co. I blame the SB for letting Gagne run all over them and not taking the reins. It is their job to direct the town administrator.
You are grasping at straws for lack of anything else. When one has nothing to fight with, one resorts to personal attacks.
So 'vote no' when Mr Walker gets on the news and says the things he says with the authority of the CFRG behind it, we as voters should just let it go - is that what you are saying? Since Barry is the sole member of the CFRG willing to talk for the group we cant dispute his 'facts' or stand up and 'speak truth to power' as the cfrg is fond of saying or it's a personal attack? Does'nt leave much room for recourse does it? Where's that transparency that the cfrg talks about?
The reporter has now 'sensationalized' Mr. Walker's comments. So what part of 'the libraries are managed poorly and fiscally irresponsible?' is the sensationalized part?
Barry - it might help to move away from divisiveness if you were able to develop an understanding of how you contributed to it. You're not going to gain the trust of others without doing that first.
The voters have to listen to our town leaders spouting half truths and misinformation. Why no outrage there? There is no trust in our leadership and that is no one's fault but their own. You can twist it and turn however you like but the bottom line is, people have had it.
There is no need for Barry to gain the trust of anyone. That responsibility lies with town officials. Barry did not create the divisiveness unless you consider questioning the status quo divisive. What is creating tension is one side believing all we need is more money and the other side believing the money is not being spent wisely. Creating a scapegoat may be comforting but not very realistic.
I have never heard town officials say that they have done everything perfectly. In fact I hear them say the opposite that they are working on implementing every improvement recommendation they can from the recommendations of the DOR, Budget & Revenue Task Force, and yes the CFRG. There are no half-truths or out right lies there. They are just people like you and me trying to do their best to do what's right and what I am sick and tired of hearing and sure hope others are as well is that they have mismanaged or performed their jobs poorly. That is absolutely false and shame on you for saying that Barry, whether it was taken out of context or not the words came out of your mouth and in my opinion are intentionally misleading to win no votes!
All personal attacks aside, I happen to be voting in favor of the Southworth library receiving funds to put on a new roof, install a new hvac system, and resurface their parking lot. I am also encouraging others to do the same. Vote yes on question 7. Vote Bill Trimble for select board. Bill, could you please consider deleting anything that is a personal attack on this blog? It's getting old. Perhaps you could consider only allowing personal attacks written by those who disclose their identity. I believe that would solve 99% of the problem.
Barry why do you support improvements to a library that will surely be decertified if Questions 2 & 5 (questions you don’t support) fail? Remember with decertification comes the loss of grant money in addition to the fact that it has been stated over and over again that library funds will continue to be cut as a "low priority" in the chopping block of services that we will have to go without if the library override requests fail. Why pay to improve the roof, hvac, etc. if you don’t support the rest? A personal attack would be against you as a person I have disagreed with what you have said and the opinion you have expressed. If you hadn't said what you said on Channel 10 then you wouldn't be challenged for it…a far cry from a personal attack.
to 'vote no' - divisiveness continues to grow when the CFRG spokeperson (de-personalized it for you)insists on talking to a news reporter and spouts unfounded attacks against a town institution and the good people that operate it. That sows the seeds of divisiveness in people who know and appreciate all the hard work the put in to make our library better against all odds. In this case it has nothing whatsoever to do with the cfrg's issues with the select board, the town administrator or the finance director. The library runs a tight ship and did not deserve this broadside from this group.
Ans yes, I find it odd to put money into a building while at the same time gutting the services held within it.
Our library did not meet the requirements for certification last year. The budget was cut by the current administration. Only one override question was not put on the ballot by the Select Board , that question was for libraries.
Let's grab onto a statement that was obviously truncated for TV as the deciding factor on the April 1 vote. Unreal! Do you honestly believe that people are never misrepresented by television reporters? Did you just crawl out of a cave?
I know, I know it was the reporter's fault, she was'nt supposed to actually quote him. And the news editor got the cfrg letter to the editor wrong and Curt Brown did'nt get a response from Barry when they questioned Mike Gagne. When does the responsibility lie with the person that makes the statement?
Apparently never when it involves the cfrg and their spokesperson.
BillT - what is your position on the Library? Do you agree with the CFRG assertion that it is poorly run and fiscally irresponsible?
Should you get elected you will certainly have a role in shaping the future of the library so where do you stand please.
Again, I ask the question....Why is the library question alone??...it should have been with question 5.(politics, to divide voters)
That was a decision made by our SB. I think the library is a valuable resource to the town. I have already lost my ND library. Now I drive all the way south, with the price of gas...that's not fun!
Barry,
You wrote in this blog that your comments were sensationalized and you believe we should "move away from the divisiveness." It seems to me that this unfortunate situation has presented you with an opportunity. Will you consider writing a letter to the Standard Times rejecting the Channel 10 quotation? Such a letter will enable you to lucidly express your views while taking a real leadership role in moving the discussion beyond the current divisiveness.
to ND Mom - That the library question stands alone is soley because of the decision to go the a la carte route. A huge mistake in my opinion and the cause of some of the rank divisivness that is now going on. Too late to re-visit that now.
If you read through Question #5 on the ballot you will see that that question does include the library staff at its current level. The stand alone library question has more to do with funding book purchases.
The CFRG does not value library service because they refuse to vote yes and fund our library services. Who needs a new roof if we'll have a building with almost no professionals and limited current resources. Voting yes for capital improvements but not supporting books and staff is irresponsible. Hopefully the dividers will find the few bucks (money not dead deer) and change their minds based on reasoning before April 1.
What is irresponsible is putting money for the library, schools, and police dept. in several different questions. Does it make sense to put the library in questions 2, 5, & 7? Or the police dept. in questions 1 & 5? The schools in questions 1, 3, & 4? Is it me or is this crazy?
Post a Comment