Now it is in print as the Indiana Commission on Local government Reform: Streamlining Local Government.
To the dismay of some I do not consider myself to be a Rabble Rouser or a Trouble Maker. I simply want for Librarians and Taxpayers in our fine state to be aware of the issues and what the consequences could be, that's all. Comments are always welcome!
The document is 46 pages long and does provide for good reading. My initial complaint is that the recommendations are totally pointed at Local Government. I think the Governor needs to take ownership of quite a bit of what isn't working (tax related) here in Indiana. It isn't just the fault of Local Government.
Following is information regarding the elements of the recommendations that directly concern Indiana Public Libraries (my comments should appear in bold italic print):
The Blue Ribbon Commission on Local Government Reform’s report is now available at http://indianalocalgovreform.iu.edu/assets/docs/Report_12-10-07.pdf. Recommendations 18-20 (of 26) specifically address public libraries. The State Library is reviewing each recommendation and encourages others to do the same.
Recommendations 18-20 read as follows:
Recommendation #18: Reorganize library systems by county and provide permanent library service for all citizens.
The overarching goal of libraries should be to maximize access to services, materials and other information resources at the lowest possible cost. The use of aggregated statistics alone masks a number of access, performance and cost-inefficiency issues. Currently, an estimated 395,000 citizens in 38 counties do not have access to library services in the communities in which they live; 29 counties contain territory that is ―underserved by contractual library service.
In recent years, the General Assembly prohibited the creation of new library districts serving less than 10,000 people. Almost three-fifths (136) of all districts serve populations of less than 10,000. These small districts serve less than 9 percent of the population and account for only 8 percent of total statewide circulation. Small districts make up large proportions of those exceeding the state average for operating expenditures and staffing per 1,000 population and for cost per circulation. In 2006, 15 library districts serving populations of 5,050 or less were cited for failing to meet minimal state standards.
A better balance between cost and service can be achieved. We recommend the mandated reorganization of library districts across the state into 92 countywide systems, with the option to reorganize into multi-county districts when prudent. By reducing the number of districts, we can address current unserved and underserved areas and achieve additional economies of scale within administrative and purchasing expenditures.
This responsibility should be assigned to the county executive. In
The significant costs regarding technology are only a small part of what consolidation is really going to cost. The taxpayers in my district will expect to be paid for the building and its fixed assets which will include both the books and computers. Additional costs will be incurred when the Leasing Corporation for the library is dissolved and the bonds resold. Costs for this alone will be in the tens of thousands.
There is also little mention of just when the payback could (if ever) begin...decades? Even in a recent article by the South Bend Tribune it was stated that consolidation could save money regarding ordering and processing, but not administrative costs.
I would much rather form a local cooperative purchasing group for materials and processing rather than consolidate, but even doing this I fear the savings would still be minimal.
Recommendation #19: Require that the budgets and bonds of library and all other special districts be approved by the fiscal body of the municipal or county government containing the greatest proportion of assessed value in the unit seeking approval.
Libraries and other special districts are independent local governments governed by ex-officio and appointed members, rather than by officials elected directly by the voters. Many, although not all, have the power to levy property taxes and issue debt. Taxpayers have indicated frustration with the gap in accountability created by such enormous fiscal powers in the hands of non-elected officials.
We believe that the most direct way to address taxpayer frustration is to create an external local approval process for the budgets and debt for these local governments. We recommend that the fiscal body of the county (in the case of unincorporated areas) or municipality containing the most assessed value within the unit boundaries approve all budgets and the issuance of all bonds with input from citizens and taxpayers. We note that our proposed solution is different in kind but not in principle from the powers designed for the county board of tax and capital projects review. We conclude that fiscal restraint may work best in the hands of existing city and county councils that already are known to the public.
I honestly thought this was part of the job by the DLGF?
Recommendation #20: Strengthen the current joint purchasing infrastructure for libraries.
As I have stated in previous posts, Libraries have the opportunity to really show both the State and other Municipalities how well we cooperate with each other and the EXTREME cost savings that can be realized. It's time we train them!!
We recommend that the Indiana State Library continue its work to review, update and expand statewide purchasing and service arrangements to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of library services across the state.