Developing a Unified Vision for Public Library Systems in Wisconsin

Changing the map for a new era of cooperation.

At a time when the Wisconsin library community needs to develop a unified vision for public library systems, I find it counterproductive and distracting to read the same divisive and inflammatory comments I heard more than 20 years ago.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, as they say, no matter how ossified, I would add, but what’s the benefit of trashing Wisconsin’s legacy of municipal public library development? According to the most recent edition of the Institute for Library and Museum Services Public Libraries in the United States Survey (2010), 10.1% of U.S. public libraries are located in communities of less than 1,000 population. An additional 16.1% are in communities in the 1,000-2,499 population range.

How does Wisconsin compare?   5.5% and 19.4%, respectively, which places us slightly below the national average.

In other words, we haven’t done anything unusual or extreme in the area of public library development.

Using Excel’s sort & filter feature, I took a look at the Wisconsin 20 smallest public libraries ranked by municipal population, based on the fact that municipalities provide nearly 60% of public library funding. This cluster, by the way, comprises just over 10% of the public libraries in Wisconsin that “have no business being in business, because they meet no objective standard to be called a public library.”

Sidebar:  (Source:  ALA/APA)

I then compared the results with the state’s 20 largest libraries. To those of us who have worked with and mentored colleagues who provide library services to the residents of Wisconsin’s smallest communities, it will come as no surprise that statistically, i.e, from a quantitative standpoint, these libraries are, for the most part, effectively connecting with their communities. As for the qualitative side of the equation, I know their users have many stories to tell about how much their services are appreciated.  And many of these services, I'd venture to say, are likely to be attributable to the collaborative services model of Wisconsin's public library systems.

So then, should our continuing discussions of public library systems include a lament as to why the Wisconsin library community neglected to “discourage any crossroads ‘wanna be’ town from creating libraries with budgets of $50,000 or less, hardly any collections to speak of, and head librarians who do not possess an MLS or even a college education.”

Anyone care to facilitate this discussion?

I’d rather focus on the following items:

• System and Resource Library Administrators Association of Wisconsin (SRLAAW) progress report and preliminary recommendations, a work-in-progress that now needs to be evaluated in light of the Joint Committee on Finance’s recommendation 
• Department of Administration (DOA) study on public library systems as required by the Joint Committee on Finance, moving from the general (the approval of Sen. Leibham’s motion) to the specific (who, what, when, where, how).   The details here are not likely to emerge until after July 1, 2013. 
• How to incorporate the current SRLAAW process into the proposed DOA study. 
• Additional information that needs to be collected, analyzed, and organized based on the specifics of Leibham’s motion to identify savings by
• consolidating regions 
• using technology, 
• reducing duplications and inefficiencies, 
• utilizing LEAN practices,
• increasing the sharing of services between library systems. 

As we refine our vision for public library systems in Wisconsin, we need to focus on where we want to go, not how we got here.   And if we can’t find common ground, the Department of Administration will happily show us the way, pushing us in a direction – is that the edge of a cliff up ahead??!! -- where we’d rather not go. 

Are you comfortable going down that path?

I didn't think so.