Privatizing Municipal Libraries

[Shwa]

A very interesting topic that spans outside of the mere local, but since the article specifically refers to Toronto, it starts here. Rather than placing this at the end of the 'Ford Era' thread I figured a separate thread because there is more at stake - or to discuss - than simply the situation in Toronto.

Would privatizing Toronto’s libraries really save money?

The American outsourcer Library Systems & Services has made a reputation for fixing broken libraries.

Whether that entails jumping in to help the Toronto Public Library meet the challenge to “rationalize the footprint of libraries to reduce service levels, closing some branches” to save up $13.3 million – as outlined Thursday at City Hall – is an open question.

But even librarians admit, in a survey published last week by American Libraries magazine, that privatizing libraries is likely to mean they run more cheaply and efficiently.

Keeping library management in the public sector, however, means a stronger community connection, more qualified staff and better quality, the survey found.

The debate, passionate in the U.S. in the last few years and now stirring in Britain, is about to hit Canada’s largest public library system.

LSSI – a U.S. company that has a monopoly on full-scale private library management – already runs the libraries in 16 U.S. communities.

The idea is intriguing and could actually start up library management companies here. I mean, there are more ways to outsource than a single option, or so they should. If they can do this with solid deliverables, sound support agreements, why not?

One of the complaints is the library as a public space, but does a privately run or outsourced space necessarily mean it is not a public space?

[Remiel]

One of the complaints is the library as a public space, but does a privately run or outsourced space necessarily mean it is not a public space?

That depends on the particulars of the arrangement. Terms can be attached, or if it is really a concern, a lease agreement could be reached instead of a sale; one that included certain conditions.

That said, I am not sure what the real effect of privatization would be. Maybe it would become more succesful at carrying the books people want to read. But it is also possible that the general experience could suffer, and that collections would deteriorate.

[The_Squid]

If they can do this with solid deliverables, sound support agreements, why not?

Makes me wonder how a library run for profit actually makes a profit. Do they charge for books? An admission fee?

Librarians would take a cut in pay and be non-union. Less books would be bought and/or replaced... Probably less computers and charge for internet services?

You get what you pay for. The city could slash the budget tomorrow and force libraries to run cheaper and more "efficient" without outsourcing.

Libraries, despite the fact I very rarely use one, are an integral part of the community. They cost money. But it is money well spent, imo.

[Shwa]

Makes me wonder how a library run for profit actually makes a profit. Do they charge for books? An admission fee?

Librarians would take a cut in pay and be non-union. Less books would be bought and/or replaced... Probably less computers and charge for internet services?

You get what you pay for. The city could slash the budget tomorrow and force libraries to run cheaper and more "efficient" without outsourcing.

Libraries, despite the fact I very rarely use one, are an integral part of the community. They cost money. But it is money well spent, imo.

I completely agree, but does library management include modern business practices which would lend themselves to making a library - even a public one - more cost efficient?

What I see here is a business opportunity more than anything, for library management firms. What I don't like about LSSI is that they are the only one.

[Bonam]

I don't see how you could privatize the library itself, given that its primary function is to loan out books at no fee. Make it ad-supported I suppose? Plaster coca cola ads on the top of every page of every book you can borrow from it?

It sounds like it's just the library management that is proposed to be privatized? Presumably they just charge the city a fee to manage the library or something?

[August1991]

Makes me wonder how a library run for profit actually makes a profit. Do they charge for books? An admission fee?

It simply means that the local government hires a private company to manage and operate municipal libraries. The idea can be (and has been) applied to many other government activities. new Zealand went so far as to "privatize" many government departments. The minister's staff signed contracts with private companies and set performance standards.

At issue in part is human resources. Public libraries have public employees and they have job security, union membership and other benefits. As the Toronto Star article notes however:

Since amalgamation, the Toronto Public Library has outsourced its paperback acquisitions, Library Workers Union Local 4948 president Maureen O’Reilly said.

On top of that, “half of the workers in the library are part-time and do not have benefits,” she said.

In effect, governments have started to solve this problem by essentially no longer hiring permanent employees.

----

I have a slightly different take on this question: why have public libraries at all? Much younger, I could spend hours in a university or public library. I now figure that the Internet provides me almost the same. [i'm scratching my chin to wonder when was the last time I looked up a call number. Truth to tell, it was about 3 months ago.]

To me, this raises a much broader, troubling question.

The private sector adapts willy-nilly to new technology. No one likes losing their job, and no company owner likes to go bankrupt because of foreign competition. But it happens. As Obama said, bank tellers have lost their jobs to ATMs and Canadian companies no longer manufacture radios or TVs.

Governments attempt to provide security and delay the inevitable. If 60 years ago governments had run our banks or manufactured our radios and TVs, we would probably still have public employees counting cash and soldering widgets.

Change however is inevitable and eventually even governments must adapt. Unfortunately when change occurs in government affairs, the change is catastrophic.

Think of change as the shifting of tectonic plates and think of the private sector as the occasional slippage/unfortunate daily minor tremor. Now, think of government as "security" preventing the daily tremors - until finally the Big One at 8.7 on the Richter scale hits.

----

Municipal governments will maintain services like libraries well past the point where they're needed. But this does not eliminate the eventual day of reckoning.

Edited July 21, 2011 by August1991

[The_Squid]

Are we talking about outsourcing or privatizing?

Outsourcing still means that the service is paid for using tax dollars. The library isn't "private" at all.

That is not the same as privatizing the library.

Even so, outsourcing the management of libraries doesn't concern me as much, except that this often doesn't work. Sometimes it is found that services get worse and it doesn't save money. That would be my concern.

And to be honest, I don't even know how my own city handles our library management, so maybe the concerns can be alleviated by having deliverables in the contract, as Shwa mentioned in the OP.

[August1991]

Are we talking about outsourcing or privatizing?

Outsourcing still means that the service is paid for using tax dollars. The library isn't "private" at all.

That is not the same as privatizing the library.

And Squid, you have entirely missed my point.

The world/universe is changing, as it always does.

Should we let Soviet/government/Leftist/librarians/bureaucrats/experts manage this change?

Or should we let individuals/the private sector/chaos/you & I deal with the unknowns of change?

Edited July 21, 2011 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

Should we let Soviet/government/Leftist/librarians/bureaucrats/experts manage this change?

Or should we let individuals/the private sector/chaos/you & I deal with the unknowns of change?

That's a false dilemma.

We *could* use current technologies to communicate facts, discuss options, and move forward. I would like to see that.

Why didn't KPMG ask about the Police Budget in any depth ? That's a billion dollars. I haven't seen a cop walking a beat since the early 1980s.

[August1991]

We *could* use current technologies to communicate facts, discuss options, and move forward. I would like to see that.

You may be right, Michael.

In general, people see the State as protection against change. Nowadays, most unionized workers are in the public sector, they work for the State.

Ordinary people look to the State for health care, and pensions. They believe that a State-guarantee eliminates risk. WTF?

----

Tectonic plates are always moving. Change happens.

Any institution that promises permanent stability is promising a false stability. This is the great error of socialism. Markets change willy-nilly. Socialism means catastrophic change.

Compare October 1929 and July 1789.

Edited July 21, 2011 by August1991

[CANADIEN]

We live in a world when knowledge is one of the most important commodities. Publicly funded and owned library are essential places for access to knowledge resources, and they are as important a public structure as roads.

Granted, there are always to make public libraries more response to the need of the public. And libaries are becoming and should become more of a virtual place. At the end of the day though, they exist, and should exisit by and for the public.

*****

I hav often heard the comment that libraries are not needed because everything is online. No, not everything is online, to begin with. As well, there is no shortage of online resources that are out of reach (for many reasons) of most people. And what is online is often enough unreliable. Public libraries, when well run anjd well-staffed, have proof themselves as spaces where people can access information that in a meaningful way.

My past job and university training, for more than 20 years, involved providing access to information. I have ferred people to pulic libraries countless times for their information needs. Not a single time to Amazon or Indigo, and have thread very carefully where Google or Wikepedia were involved.

[August1991]

We live in a world when knowledge is one of the most important commodities. Publicly funded and owned library are essential places for access to knowledge resources...

Minute, papillon. WTF?

I get my information from the Internet, using a private an ISP, and people who choose to post here.

Canadien, as you say, "We live in a world when knowledge is one of the most important commodities." I am thankful that the Internet has placed this knowledge into everyone's hands.

I would not want knowledge to be "centralized".

No, not everything is online, to begin with.

...

My past job and university training, for more than 20 years, involved providing access to information.

I will draw my own conclusion.

I happen to think that the Internet is neat.

Edited July 22, 2011 by August1991

[CANADIEN]

dup

Edited July 22, 2011 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

dup

Edited July 22, 2011 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Minute, papillon. WTF?

I get my information from the Internet, using a private an ISP, and people who choose to post here.

Canadien, as you say, "We live in a world when knowledge is one of the most important commodities." I am thankful that the Internet has placed this knowledge into everyone's hands.

I would not want knowledge to be "centralized".

We are not talking about centralization of information, but about a public space where people can access information. In another word, not ISP`s.But nice try.

And no, the Internet has not placed knowledge into everyone`s hands. No more than the printing press did place knowledge into everyone`s hands. They are just the tools of transmission. Public spaces for access to information (namely public libraries) are how knowledge becomes available to everyone.

I will draw my own conclusion.

Feel free to do so. Nobody is forcing you otherwise. You, on the opposite, seem to be bent on limiting access to knowledge to what is on one incomplete platform (the Internet) and to eliminate one public space where EVERYONE can access information.

I happen to think that the Internet is neat.

And I happen to know from experience that the Internet is a jungle, and that the information on there is only as reliable as the source of it. Also that not everything is on the Net, or easily available even if on the Net.

Edited July 22, 2011 by CANADIEN

[BubberMiley]

That would be ideal, I suppose. Rid communities of all jobs that might pay a living wage so that some corporation can siphon out money as a middleman, offering $11-an-hour jobs.

Why not?

[bloodyminded]

Should we let Soviet/government/Leftist/librarians/bureaucrats/experts manage this change?

That's quite the grouping, there, what with the slashmarks denoting equivalence.

And I'm amazed that some people are still shivering in fear of the mighty Soviet Communists.

Or should we let individuals/the private sector/chaos/you & I deal with the unknowns of change?

Most of your original list is by definition made up of "individuals."

Edited July 22, 2011 by bloodyminded

[charter.rights]

We already have private libraries in Canada. They call themselves "Chapters". And privatization of municipal operated libraries would likely have to take that form.

[Shwa]

We already have private libraries in Canada. They call themselves "Chapters". And privatization of municipal operated libraries would likely have to take that form.

But is that the necessary conclusion though?

As I see it, privatizing the management of the library system in Toronto won't necessarily result in a commodification of the public trust (of books, information, space), remove the space from public access nor remove some sort of library-ish prosperity for the workers. A careful set of operational agreements and support specifications could mitigate all those concerns.

However, even better, is the idea that the librarians themselves can form a company to do this, and leverage all that expertise. It is one thing to look at a single source option, and quite another to explore possibilities.

For example, the old employment offices used to offer employment counselling. This function was eventually peeled off into private hands. But since there was a dearth of firms that could provide this expertise, many new ones were created by former employment counsellors. Now they operate these little private employment agencies that contract for services. The cost of those employees to the government was off-loaded and, in the long run, accounted for savings I am sure.

Why not the same with library staff and systems?

I see this as an economic opportunity within an obviously neglected 'knowledge sector' that is perfectly in keeping with our 'service economy.' However, if someone in the Toronto library system has the chops to create something competitive, they should get off their hands and plan.

[charter.rights]

But is that the necessary conclusion though?

As I see it, privatizing the management of the library system in Toronto won't necessarily result in a commodification of the public trust (of books, information, space), remove the space from public access nor remove some sort of library-ish prosperity for the workers. A careful set of operational agreements and support specifications could mitigate all those concerns.

However, even better, is the idea that the librarians themselves can form a company to do this, and leverage all that expertise. It is one thing to look at a single source option, and quite another to explore possibilities.

For example, the old employment offices used to offer employment counselling. This function was eventually peeled off into private hands. But since there was a dearth of firms that could provide this expertise, many new ones were created by former employment counsellors. Now they operate these little private employment agencies that contract for services. The cost of those employees to the government was off-loaded and, in the long run, accounted for savings I am sure.

Why not the same with library staff and systems?

I see this as an economic opportunity within an obviously neglected 'knowledge sector' that is perfectly in keeping with our 'service economy.' However, if someone in the Toronto library system has the chops to create something competitive, they should get off their hands and plan.

I kind of see it as the way contracting out of garbage collection went. First it was merely a new group of people doing the same job. Now all kinds of places have limits on the number of garbage bags they can put out and many places have to purchase tags just to put garbage out at the curb.

When I was president of a CUPE local, we did an analysis of contracted out vs. municipal worker collected garbage and found that not only were the municipal workers much more efficient, they provided better service. The private contractors that collect my garbage today, leave crap all over the place....if they miss their bin when dumping the recyclables, they just leave them blowing in the wind.

I'm not sure that privatization of libraries would be any better.

[dre]

Should we let Soviet/government/Leftist/librarians/bureaucrats/experts manage this change?

Holy shit. Do you realize you actually typed that?

[bloodyminded]

Holy shit. Do you realize you actually typed that?

I took a stab at it, but I admit it's impossible to know where to start correcting it.

[August1991]

We live in a world when knowledge is one of the most important commodities. Publicly funded and owned library are essential places for access to knowledge resources, and they are as important a public structure as roads.

True. And we now have the Internet.

Canadien, when were you born? Like Bush Jnr, in 1948?

[August1991]

And I happen to know from experience that the Internet is a jungle, and that the information on there is only as reliable as the source of it. Also that not everything is on the Net, or easily available even if on the Net.

The Internet is a jungle? The information is not reliable?

---

One generation passes on to the next, willy-nilly, accumulated experience. Such is evolution.

That would be ideal, I suppose. Rid communities of all jobs that might pay a living wage so that some corporation can siphon out money as a middleman, offering $11-an-hour jobs. Why not?

And in your world view, we should pay candle-makers in 2011 $30 per hour since they provide light.

---

My point is that if the candle-makers are State employees, then they have security for awhile. But candles are a wasteful, environmentally unfriendly source of light.

The State offers security/protection for awhile, but when the change arrives, it is catastrophic.

Markets make change easier.

Holy shit. Do you realize you actually typed that?

Yes, I did. I even thought about the formulation.

To repeat, here it is: "Should we let Soviet/government/Leftist/librarians/bureaucrats/experts manage this change?"

Edited July 22, 2011 by August1991

[CANADIEN]

True. And we now have the Internet.

... and books, and e-books, and databases available non online, but at... guess where, public library. What a diverse universe of information sources. Especially for those who understand qand appreciate each of them, as oppsed those who think that one in particular is all they need.

Canadien, when were you born? Like Bush Jnr, in 1948?

Soooo... I have the capacity to know that there somethin in the Universe besides the Internet, therefore I MUST be some form of relic from a past age? Well, I might be temptedf to wonder if you were even born when Steven Harper won his first elections, but then children of that age already know the value of a book. :P