Cooperation Today

I left a comment a few days ago about small libraries that cannot afford to pay someone with a degree. I am going to retire later this year after working as Library Director here for 46 years. I do not have a degree but have taken correspondence classes, 1 year college and some continuing education along the way. I also attended SMPLI a few years back. My
intended successor has been with me for 25 years and has attended continuing education credits. I plan for her to attend Small Public Library Institue this year. She also plans to
sign up for online classes to work toward her LTA. Do these things count? Hopefully you will consider all of these options in your membership criteria. Thanks so much.
Elaine Foster, Library Director Carmi Public Library

@Elaine Foster
Elaine,
All of these things that you mention are important and are the way many who staff our smaller libraries gain education. The draft criteria that we have now are what we feel is the minimum reqirement for libraries. We are not looking to remove members from the system but to have a criteria that encourages the best qualified staff possible so that the residents will have the best service possible.
We are usinsg the term full conditional for all members that are current full system members but that would not meet the new criteria. There will be a number of years that libraries will have to meet the new criteria. It will take a while to get all the kinks worked out. Please bear with us as we move forward.

My decision to work for a System comes from my personal commitment to libraries and all they can offer to the communities they serve. I have always felt that the role of a System is to support libraries in helping them bring the best possible service to the communities they serve. I am firmly committed to the concept that each community has the right to determine (through a defined process) whether they want to have a library and to what degree they can financially support it.

While I agree that Systems should encourage library directors and staff to pursue a MLS, it is not always possible for a variety of reasons. Additionally, the quality of service provided through a library is not always based on the degree of its staff. There are other ways to continue to learn and stay informed. In our System (and I am sure in other Systems as well) there are many libraries who are headed by committed, well informed individuals who do not have MLS degreed librarians and provide a variety of wonderful services to the people in their communities.

As the Planning Panel debates the topic of system standards, I hope there is a healthy discussion on the role of the new System and agree that that State library standards are sufficient. An unintended outcome of having more strict education requirements could be to support those more financially strong libraries. Communities and schools with less financial resources could eventually be denied resource sharing and delivery for the populations they serve; opportunities to have access to other financial resources available through federal and state supported grants; and opportunities for their staff to have access to learning opportunities offered through Systems and the State.

Quality Information is one thing that should be available to ALL people in Illinois.” Hopefully, working together, we will expand those opportunities, not restrict it.”

I’ve learned a few things that have made me really have a problem with these membership standards as proposed. First of all, why do we need these at this point? It is my understanding that the Illinois State Library would like as much consistency as possible between the new Northern and Southern Systems. Why shouldn’t we wait and let the newly elected Boards of these systems come up with appropriate membership standards?

Our interim “standards” should be that whatever level member you are in your current system, that’s what you are in the new system. Why spend so much time writing standards that most assuredly will need to be changed in the near future?

Now, on to the standards as proposed. After comparing these membership standards (and I speak as a school) to current membership standards, the proposed standards are MUCH more exclusive than the current standards of ANY of the four current systems. Why would we want to do that? They are also more stringent than the Illinois State Board of Education requires for school districts. If we think that these standards will have ANY bearing on the hiring decisions of my local school board, we are living in a dream world. Losing library system membership, to my school board, means we lose about $2,600 in per capita grants (annually), and we will possibly have to spend a couple thousand dollars (one-time cost) to implement a stand-alone circulation system. Compare that to the annual salary of a school librarian with an endorsement or master’s degree. They will do the math, and this will be a “no brainer” for my school board.

I’ve also heard appalling numbers from small public libraries. Something like, they will have to spend 1/3 or more of their budget to hire a MLS, for a library that is SERVING ITS PUBLIC WELL. Why do we need to rock the boat for so many small publics? I’ll let them speak for themselves, since I don’t know that much about this issue, but I can empathize.

The fact that the initial document we started with for these proposed membership standards was a draft document proposed to ILSDO is irrelevant. That organization NEVER discussed this draft. It was ONLY a draft, and we should assume major revisions would have been made to this document before acceptance by that organization.

There are plenty of very important issues that the planning committee needs to attend to. Membership standards are not one of them. Please stop spending time on this document and move on to more important, relevant issues.

I have only been the library director this year due to budget cuts of our degreed library media specialist and I teach 4 hours of the day as well. Needless to say, I cannot staff the library alone, so a recently RIF’d instructional aide was hired to cover hours during the day. I agree with Annette Mills’ comment that the ISBE requires less of school districts to have a library specialist who meets the educational criteria. For our district, ‘another certified teacher who goes to annual training on library topics’ could be given the duties/oversight of the school’s library. That’s me. Even though I have a master’s degree in instructional technology, not library media services, I qualified. I know also that losing library system membership, although not desirable, is not something worth spending thousands of dollars on to pay for another master’s degree for me or pay for a qualified library media specialist (which was what resulted in this situation in the first place).

I don’t have an answer; just wanted to state that I see the budget side and how these standards might cause a drop in memberships.

I, too, question the necessity of putting any membership standards in place at this time. It seems to me that the bigger issue is how to smooth the transition to a new system structure as much as possible. What the planning panel needs to concentrate on (in my opinion) is the budget for the new system, the staffing, the location, and how to ensure that there are no breaks in services from June 30, 2011, to July 1, 2011. I agree that the membership standards need to be developed in concert with the northern system – after the systems have transformed. There is no reason to have new membership standards in place at this time – if we’ve waited these many years to come up with new standards we can wait a little longer – this is not what is broken. Please devote your time and energy to making the new system function from day one.

As Annette Mills mentioned in her comments, many schools cannot afford some of the things they are requiring in the draft. We are hoping to automate our elementary schools in the next two years, but I know that if part of that would involve having to hire additional librarians instead of the people who are currently taking care of the elementary schools, we will not automate. I could also see our district dropping out and buying stand alone systems if the costs and requirements become too demanding. Money is tight everywhere unfortunately, and I feel fortunate that we have at least been able to maintain elementary libraries instead of losing them as many districts have done.

The Lewis & Clark Library System passed the following resolution at the February 15, 2011 board meeting:

Resolve to recommend all current members of Systems be continued in their current membership status until such time that the boards of both the northern and southern Systems can establish uniform membership criteria. This recommendation is based on the following rationale:
• The funding: EAV (Equalized Assessed Valuation) is not valid due to the inequities of local assessors.
• Tax caps, which limit the amount of funds in some districts, have not been considered.
• Educational requirements: The proposed membership requirements exceed ISBE requirements for schools (which require 1 media specialist per district, not per school).
• The MLS expectation may not be appropriate for certain communities.
• It is premature to set continuing education requirements prior to determining what funding is available for provision of continuing educational opportunities.
We hope that the new membership criteria will be more inclusive rather than exclusive, particularly during these difficult economic times.

Thanks for reading!

While a worthy goal, any requirement of an advanced degree for any but the largest of libraries would impose an undue hardship on those who can least afford the extra expenses such a hire would incur. I have witnessed this desire among the professional library community to create a network of elites who carve out a comfortable future for themselves while simultaneously holding communities hostage to pay such tribute. This smacks of the cronyism and festering sores that have made our fair state the laughingstock of the nation for its economic excesses.

When being evaluated by the Serving Our Public 2.0, I must annally report that our community is barely meeting MINIMUM standards in facility size, collection size, number of staff, etc. With dwindling sources of funding (exclusive of property tax levies), we do not have the resources to progress beyond our current levels. There is no silver bullet to be found in raising our tax levy in today’s (or the foreseeable future, either) economic climate.

Requiring me at this stage in life to obtain an advanced degree would result in either long-term financial hardship or terminating my employment with the library. Upon achieving an MLS, my library could not afford to increase my compensation commensurate with the education, nor could they pay any other benefits, such as medical insurance, that I currently do not receive.

I do not believe that my community is alone in this pedicament. What this document in its current form would do is to DECREASE access to library services in our state. Many communities would be forced to terminate system membership and/or operate in the same fiscally irresponsible manner our state government has chosen for decades. I do not believe the quality of service provided by hundreds of Head Librarians as myself is lacking due to the absence of an MLS, nor do I believe the quality of service would appreciably increase upon attainment of same. To me, this requirement is a non-starter and a stumbling block to accomplishing the really important goals we have for our constituents.

@Diane Steele

As a board member of LCLS, I absolutely agree with the resolution passed by the Lewis and Clark Library System Board of Directors on Feb. 15 2011. After reading Tina’s comments, I would like to echo her sentiments on the focus of the planning panel. It is far more important to define what our service should be and a budget, not quibbling on membership criteria that could look entirely different in a few years. There will be time to address all of the concerns regarding standards as the merger progresses. The most important issue facing the merger today is the smooth continuation of services.