When contacting Legislators or the Governor about Library Issues

Guidelines for Writing to Indiana Legislators and

Governor Daniels about Library Issues

• Handwritten letters are most effective. If you type your letter, sign your name above your typed signature. In either case, if available, use your personal or business letterhead. You may also email or call your legislator or the Governor, but these communications are considered to be less effective than regular written letters.
• Write to all legislators serving your library district (see below) and to Governor Daniels.
• Avoid word-for word copying of provided information.
• Be polite - Ask for support for your position, don’t demand or be disrespectful.
• Be poignant - Letter should be personal, brief (one page) and concise.
• Be direct - State your purpose for writing in the first paragraph. If you are a voter in his/her district, state this as well.
• Support your position - Include personal information about how consolidation could affect you and your library. Illustrate potential impacts or your concerns with factual data or examples.
• Be timely - Make sure you are up-to-date on the issue and mail your response as soon as possible.
• Be open - Be sure to include your contact information and feel free to ask for a written response. You can offer to talk more about the issue by phone or in person.
• State your appreciation - Thank the legislator/governor for his/her time, consideration or support.
• Addressing your letter - Address your letters to legislators to The Honorable (full name of senator or representative), and to the Governor to The Honorable Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana. The salutation is Dear Senator (last name), Dear Representative (last name) or Dear Governor Daniels.

Email addresses for House members are “h” and then the number of the district followed by @in.gov. For example, the address for House Speaker B. Patrick Bauer from House District 6 is h6@in.gov. You can find out the district of your legislators by visiting http://www.in.gov/legislative.

Email addresses for Senators follow the same pattern, substituting an “s” for the “h”. For example, the address for Senate President David Long from Senate District 16 is s16@in.gov.

Regular mail for the House can be sent to: Indiana House of Representatives, 200 W. Washington Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204 (800-382-9842 or 800-382-9841)

Regular mail to the Senate can be sent to: Indiana State Senate, 200 W. Washington Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204 or her district office: 6195 Central Avenue, Portage, IN 46368 (800-383-946)7 or (219-764-0434)

Governor Mitch Daniels, Office of the Governor, Statehouse, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-2797 (email: mdaniels@gov.in.gov)

Share your letter with your library – Please drop off a copy

From the Alexandria-Monroe Public Library

I agree that not having to compete with police, fire, etc. in front of
an elected body for a piece of the pie is one reason libraries in
Indiana rank high when compared to libraries elsewhere. In Louisville,
it was excruciating to sit through budget hearings each year while
department directors begged and pleaded the Metro Council for their
budgets, which were already at bare minimal levels to begin with. Not a
fun time in the least. 

Montie L. Manning
Director
Alexandria-Monroe Public Library
117 E. Church St.
Alexandria, IN 46001-2005
Phone: 765-724-2196
Fax: 765-724-2204

From the Indiana Library Federation

The position document that recently appeared on the listserv (see below) is a working draft of the Indiana Library Federation's Legislative Committee. Further input is coming in from committee members and not only is this document not in its final form, it has not received approval from the ILF Executive Committee. All ILF members are welcome to contact members of the Legislative Committee to provide input as we work diligently to finalize our legislative position.

Recommendations made in the Indiana Commission on Local Government Reform’s report “Streamlining Local Government” would have impact on all libraries in the State of Indiana. The Indiana Library Federation feels that the recommendations contained in the report do not provide mechanisms for implementation. Furthermore, the complexity of the issue may deem it inappropriate for some libraries and/or library districts.

The Indiana Library Federation supports a thorough evaluation of the cost-savings of the recommendations and an approach that allows each library and or library district input into the determination as to what is the best approach for it and its patrons. The Federation will oppose any legislation that proposes a “cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all” mentality towards public libraries.

The Federation believes that library service is a primary function of good government and, in keeping with that belief, supports legislation that will provide additional options for unserved areas to receive quality library service.

Furthermore, the Federation believes that it is in the educational interest of all students K through 12^th grade in the State of Indiana to have a school media center located in each building within the school system as well as a certified School Media Specialist in charge of each media center. The Federation will oppose any legislative changes that would propose the elimination of any school media centers or school media specialists.

From Evan Davis at Allen County PL

Admitting I have not followed the issue closely, and realizing that local leaders could be helpful in developing libraries in the many Indiana communities that do not have library service, I still feel compelled to suggest that one reason so many of Indiana's public libraries are of high quality is that they are independent of city and county governments. It seems that every month I read about libraries in other states that are having their budgets slashed by municipal or county governments. I'm glad we don't have to deal with that here.

Evan Davis
Allen County Public Library
Fort Wayne

Information forwarded by Roberta Brooker, Director ISL

**SB NOTE** Blogger doesn't allow for attachments etc., please find the information referenced below at the following web address www.ncpl.info/listserve/ICMAMGTPERSPECTIVE.pdf

I wanted to provide Indiana librarians with this article - Local
Government Managers and Public Libraries: Partners for a Better
Community.

It is good know that others are studying similar initiatives and their
results may be helpful to Indiana.

Thanks,
Roberta Brooker

As posted by Nick Schenkel at the West Lafayette Public Library

12/14/2007

Good afternoon!

I’ve been reading the comments far and wide that have been generated by the Blue Ribbon Commission report and I’d like to offer my own thoughts to the discussion.

In response to Connie Ozinga’s recent comments on this listserv, I. for one am not automatically opposed to the “streamlining local government” report or even those parts that address public libraries in particular.

But - let’s not destroy our strong public library system in Indiana in hopes of “re-forming” it.

What I am opposed to is the “one-size-fits-all” attitude the report takes when addressing local public libraries in our State.

Indiana’s public libraries work hard now to both provide nationally recognized library service and maintain tight budgets.*

Here is what concerns me about the report. Let’s look at the supposed “cost-savings” achieved by forcing all libraries into county-wide districts. The State Library’s own statistics show that the difference in cost-per-capita among large, medium, and small library districts is minor – and probably for good reason. All of us already strive to provide the best collections and services for the least cost to our communities.

How then, does the “streamlining local government” report get from that statistical fact to the facile presumption that eliminating our current system of co-existing smaller and larger library districts in favor of county-wide libraries will be more cost-saving?

I fear that there is only one real cost-saving way county-wide libraries could operate: given the tight library budgets that already exist and the tremendous amount of shared purchasing, continuing education, and computer services that already go on among almost all Indiana public libraries, to save any REAL library costs, the State government will have to demand that we close existing library buildings and eliminate existing library staff.**

That is NOT the way to build strong and responsive libraries for Hoosiers!

So, instead of the draconian, one-size-fits-all-communities called for in the “streamlining of local government report” – I recommend all of us in the Indiana library community respond POSITIVELY and say yes this report is worthwhile – then take the lead ourselves in bringing cost-savings to local public libraries.

Here are some ideas to move us forward as we work to bring cost-savings to our public libraries:

· INCREASE the size of public library boards to provide broader local representation in taxing and policy making,

· Allow communities to choose to elect their library board members – again, to increase local control of taxing and policy making,

· Develop regional “goal setting” library boards to set long range goals – and budget parameters that fit those goals - for libraries in a multi-county area.

· Expand regional and State level cost-saving programs through INCOLSA and the State Library – put significant State money behind efforts to encourage regional sharing of staff, computer and other administrative services as determined by regional agreements,

· Develop groups of local libraries and give these groups significant (not paper thin) financial and governing incentives to work with each other based on local needs.

To my mind some Indiana libraries already pursue many of these possibly cost-saving initiatives right now – let’s take the lead in crafting thoughtful and wide-ranging expansion of these – and other – possibly cost-saving efforts.

Will this cost the State some money to get such initiatives started? Probably yes.

Will it save our local communities money in the long run? It seems to me that those who say “larger library districts” are “less expensive” would say yes – so let’s take that idea seriously and try “larger is better” through real-world programs that respect local autonomy but demand regional effort.

Let’s test these ideas in Indiana! We’ll be taking the cost-saving aspects of the “streamlining local government” report seriously –as we ought to - and, if “larger is better” DOES serve to reduce costs AND expand library services and collections; we can proceed to take the lead in crafting the next steps for public libraries in our State.

Respectfully submitted,

Nick Schenkel, West Lafayette Public Library

*Let’s remember that those local library budgets are ultimately approved by the State’s Department of Local Government Finance annually – now.

** I am – and I hope others are - certainly open to reading/hearing other real-world means to achieve significant cost savings by Indiana libraries short of closing buildings and eliminating staff!

---

Excellent points from Connie Jo Ozinga

My comment, published in the Elkhart Truth the other day, http://www.etruth.com/Know/News/Story.aspx?id=432343 (free registration may be required.) :

At the Elkhart Public Library, director Connie Jo Ozinga said the report's proposal to create countywide library districts is intriguing but probably unattainable.

Elkhart County has six library districts, though four townships remain unserved by library service.

"I just can't imagine how we'd get from here to there," Ozinga said of consolidating the districts. "The cost to merge all those different databases and systems would be huge.

So is everybody in the Indiana public library opposed to this? Will ILF legislative be formally opposed? What little has been said on the email lists has made me think so. If so, I am dismayed. Are we automatically against change? Can we not see the “big picture”?

I do understand the small library’s concerns about the potential loss of service in their communities. I am the Director of the largest of the 6 libraries in Elkhart County, and I have no desire to be responsible for the logistics of creating a county library. Nor do I assume that I would be the Director of any such institution.

So this is my official announcement that I am neutral on the recommendations of the report. There are some positive things in the recommendations: this proposal would finally address the unserved areas issue, and address the regular accusations regarding non-elected boards with taxing authority.

I would like to see some discussion on this list about the recommendations.

I’ve also seen several statements that smaller communities would end up paying the larger library’s debt service after consolidation. This topic came up at our recent bond hearing in Indianapolis, and the DLGF made it very clear that the residents of geographic area that originally issued the bonds would continue to be the only taxpayers levied the bond rate. Potentially you could have a county library where the tax rate is different in every city/township due to the debt still owed by the now consolidated local library.

My comment about probably unattainable refers to my lack of faith that our legislature could or would ever actually implement these recommendations.

So flame me if you wish, but I am dismayed that our profession seems to have immediately acted in opposition to the recommendations.

Connie

Connie Jo Ozinga, Director cjo@elkhart.lib.in.us

(574)522-3333 www.elkhart.lib.in.us
Elkhart Public Library Elkhart, IN 46516

The Elkhart Public Library provides access to resources which inform, educate, enlighten and entertain our diverse community.....Books are just the beginning.

A suggestion worth merit.

Originally viewed in the Indianapolis Star

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071212/LOCAL/312120012

Below is one of the few comments that really had merit. It would need some tweaking, but we still retain local control, but there are fewer taxing authorities rather than multiple taxing authorities. Biggest difference for us would be fighting for budget dollars and one entity fighting and plotting against another entity for those tax dollars

Comment # 84 wrote (http://www.topix.net/forum/source/indianapolis-star/TAP10LBS7DJ48A8PH/p5) : I've posted about this here before. I grew up in Virginia, where the local government system is similar to what is proposed here. Everything below state government is either the county or an incorporated city. Urban counties have an elected county supervisor with an elected board of commissioners. Other counties have a board of supervisors that serve both legislative and executive functions. But all schools, library, parks, transportation, assessment, and other functions come under the ultimate budgetary and TAXING authority of the county-level goverment. It makes it much easier to participate in your local government, because you hold those few county supervisors responsible for all of it.(There are also elected school boards, but they are responsible for planning, curriculum, etc., only - their budgets and any necessary tax increases are subject to the approval of the county supervisors). Cities work basically the same way, but they are considered separate entities from the counties. There are also towns, but their budgets and taxing authority lie with the county.

So there are very few taxing authorities in Virginia. That's what Indiana needs - consolidation of taxing authorities. You can go ahead and elect whomever you want - school boards, assessors, clerks, library boards, etc.- but consolidate the taxing at one level in each city or county. Then we know exactly who to praise or blame for the level of taxes we pay to the county. And when one person or council is responsible, they'll make darn sure your taxes don't go up too much, whether it's for schools, libraries, roundabouts, whatever.

Long story short, Virginia has been consistently named one of the best state economies and has one of the lowest overall tax burdens in the nation. Indiana has not been. We need to LOOK AROUND at Virginia and other state examples of how to run a lean, efficient system of state and local government.

From Phil Baugher at the Westchester Public Library

**Note: Mr. Baugher's "Talking Points" appear at the end of this post.

Greetings again,

It’s been a while since I’ve written concerning library consolidation, but now that the Indiana Commission on Local Government Reform report has been released I’d thought I’d share some thoughts and talking points I threw together. Please feel free to use the document any way you may see fit, adding, correcting, or deleting anything you may like.

Please contact me directly if you want me to resend anything I’ve previously sent.

My trustees and I have a meeting scheduled with 3 of our 4 legislators this evening to talk with them about the report, and I encourage you to reach out to your local representatives too.

As I wrote in an earlier message, please feel free to use this mailing list to communicate with your colleagues by posting a message in a reply to all. You can strip out the content of any of my messages, sending a communication to the group and share your observations, and/or any other documents you might believe might be of use to our public library community in this campaign to preserve the independence of our libraries.

Please remember to visit Steve Boggs’ blog at http://sospl.blogspot.com/ for additional resources related to the topic.

We’re all in this together.

Phil

We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.
— John F. KENNEDY

Phil Baugher, Director

Westchester Public Library

200 West Indiana Ave.

Chesterton, IN 46304

phone - 1-219-926-7696

Westchester Public Library

December 12, 2007

Talking Points and Responses to

“Streamlining Local Government”

Some General Observations

The report, “Streamlining Local Government” speculates about how local government might be altered to reduce property taxes for taxpayers. Unfortunately, the recommendations appear to be based largely on a variety of unsubstantiated assumptions and leaps in logic. The report lacks concrete examples and data calculations of how much might be saved for each recommendation. The recommendations also do not address the negative impact the recommendations might have on the delivery of local government services if enacted.

The web site for the Indiana Commission on Local Government Reform contains extensive summarized comments received from the public through the commission’s web site, e-mail address or by regular mail. The comments are overwhelmingly opposed to the consolidation of libraries. Unfortunately, the report fails to acknowledge these comments and cherry picks only the comments supporting their recommendations to be included in the text of the report.

Recommendation #18 - Reorganize library systems by county and provide permanent library service for all citizens.

The report acknowledges the high ranking of Indiana’s public libraries in all benchmarks.

Small libraries obviously contribute greatly to the overall high ranking.

Consolidation and addressing areas not served by a public library are two separate issues.

Bigger is not necessarily better especially if library facilities are centralized and are not conveniently located in the communities served.

There are already legal mechanisms in place that would allow libraries to merge together and form larger library districts if desired by their library boards. Permissive legislation might be considered that would allow residents to merge library districts through a referendum without relying on library boards to approve the issue.

Larger libraries tend to incur more debt through bonding and building.

The remodeled and expanded central library of the Indianapolis-Marion County Public Library was 2 years overdue, cost over $103 million, was $50 million over budget, and a library trustee plead guilty of a felony related to the building project. Larger libraries have a greater concentration of resources that could be lost through theft, mismanagement, or the simple fiscal or operational ineptitude of library officials.

The issue of un-served areas can only be resolved by mandating all citizens be taxed for library service and by allowing townships to either create their own library district, contract for service with an existing district for a negotiated price, or to merge permanently with an existing district would allow a township to chose the best and most economical option for their citizens.

Forcing un-served areas into the larger libraries would be more expensive and in some cases, citizens would be responsible for paying off the old debt incurred by the larger unit.

Consolidation would not guarantee that existing library buildings in merged units would continue to be operated, or that the un-served areas would receive library building of their own in return for the new taxes they would be required to pay. Larger units tend to build and operate larger buildings.

Consolidation of libraries would reduce the number of library trustees who are available throughout the state to respond to the concerns of their citizens, reducing accountability. Fewer trustees would also reduce public oversight of libraries and could lead to increased corruption and mismanagement.

Library trustees are volunteers and are not paid for their service.

Most library directors serving in small libraries are not full-time administrators, serving more as professional librarians than as bureaucrats.

Consolidation would reduce the number of library directors in the state, but the library buildings they operate would still need professional supervision and guidance.

New, proposed certification standards for library employees recently proposed by the Indiana State Library require public libraries to employ many more trained professional librarians throughout the state, not fewer.

Merging the various automated systems in libraries in the state would take a long time and cost millions of dollars.

The general public appears to be very satisfied with the quality of their library service, and is not clamoring for radical change.

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 only account for 3.33% of total property tax expenditures.

Public library property tax collections are limited by the same state regulations and annual multipliers as other local units of government.

Public libraries and other local units of government are not responsible for the recent and dramatic increases in property taxes due to the elimination of the inventory tax and changes in the method of property assessment. Public libraries should not be singled out for blame. Any new property tax controls should be applied equitably among all units of government to insure no one area of service suffers dramatically.

Public libraries are usually very conservative and if their recent expenditures have been high in comparison with other local units of government, it has been because public libraries have been required to provide their public with many new technologies. If we want our citizens to continue to be competitive in the modern world, we should consider how we can improve the information services provided by our public libraries, not how these services can be reduced.

A recent study of Indiana’s public libraries concluded that for every $1 spent on public libraries, a direct value of $2.38 was returned to the public.

Recent, new regulations already require that bond issues in excess of $7 million be approved by the county board of tax and capital review. A referendum might also be considered to determine the success or failure of a bond issue. Let the voters decide.

This proposal could disenfranchise all of the citizens who don’t reside in the municipal or county unit not having the greatest proportion of assessed valuation.

The proposal would give a body the authority to reduce the budget of another local unit of government without having any real responsibility for providing the public service of the second unit. This would greatly reduce accountability to the public.

The existing and proposed “circuit breaker” legislation limits the total amount of taxes that can be collected in a county. If the larger fiscal body in the county found its property tax collections being limited by the circuit breaker ceiling, it would very likely slash the library’s budget or could even conceivably close the public library to reduce their loss. Again, property tax controls should be applied equitably among all units of government.

If the issue is really one objecting to appointed boards having the ability to levy taxes, then the obvious solution is to change the law and require public library boards be elected and to not jeopardize the public libraries they serve.

The general public appears to be very satisfied with the cost of library service, and is not clamoring for radical change.

Miscellaneous Points

Public libraries operate very efficiently and cooperatively. Many libraries already participate in a variety of cooperative purchasing programs. Some libraries share automated systems and are working towards establishing shared bibliographic catalogs. Libraries also participate in interlibrary loan programs, arranging for the loan of and borrowing of materials between libraries on behalf of their patrons upon request. There are also a variety of reciprocal borrowing agreements throughout the state that allow library patrons to travel to a neighboring library district to borrow materials directly.

Initial post of information from the Indiana Library Federation

FROM: John V. Barnett, Jr.

Hopefully by now you have had an opportunity to thoughtfully consider Recommendations 18, 19 and 20 in the Shepard-Kernan Commission report released Tuesday, December 11. The website is: http://indianalocalgovreform.iu.edu/.

Clearly, every library district would be impacted if these recommendations were to be implemented. You are urged to immediately communicate your thoughts to the legislators that represent your district as well as local media outlets. Key point – “The devil is in the details.” If the details of implementing these recommendations have been discussed, none have been disclosed. Implementing Recommendation 18 will be very complicated since, as the Commission itself has acknowledged, “one size does not fit all”. Much more serious thought must be given to each of these recommendations. And, that can’t possibly happen between now and January 8 when the legislature reconvenes. If you have more specific thoughts or concerns about the impact locally, mention them.

Library directors, trustees, and appointing authorities should be involved in this effort.

Your immediate attention to this request is very important.

Thanks for your follow-through.

From South Bend Tribune...SB comments in Bold/Italic

From: http://southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071213/News01/712130318/1130/Sports01

Kernan offers insights on reform report
Former governor tells what went into effort, what he hopes it accomplishes.

JAMES WENSITS
Tribune Political Writer

SOUTH BEND -- The Indiana Commission on Local Government Reform report on streamlining local government came with a message just short of a warning:

"We've got to stop governing like this," it said.

Former Indiana Gov. Joe Kernan, who co-chaired the commission, met with the Tribune's editorial board Wednesday in an effort to explain what went into the nearly six-months-long commission effort and what he hopes the state will get out of it.


In all, the commission made 27 recommendations for streamlining local government, each of which was unanimously approved by Kernan, Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall Shepard, who was the other co-chair, and the remaining five commission members.

The findings were not intended as a criticism of local government officials, Kernan said, but rather as an indictment of a structure that is more than 150 years old and which "doesn't make sense" today.

One of the commission recommendations would create a single-person elected county chief executive who would become responsible for administering the duties of what are now elected officials, such as the county auditor, treasurer, sheriff, assessor, recorder, surveyor and coroner.

Another would do away with township-level government by transferring those responsibilities, which include assessment, fire protection and poor relief, to the county executive.

What follows are excerpts from that conversation, abridged for the sake of brevity. The full text will be made available on The Tribune's Web site.

Q. If you do away with township government, how would persons in rural areas receive poor relief?

A. Doing away with township government does not mean that we would necessarily do away with convenient locations for some services to be delivered. We are not telling communities that the delivery of those services has to be centralized.

We recommend the reorganization of libraries on a countywide basis. We don't say and do not recommend that local libraries be closed. We've got Madison Township that has no library service at all. There are 400,000 people in Indiana that don't have any service. We are certainly not recommending that we close libraries. Nor are we recommending closing schools.

Q. Would there be one library system for St. Joseph County that would combine the Mishawaka-Penn-Harris, St. Joseph County, New Carlisle-Olive Township and Walkerton public libraries?

A. That's what we propose.

Q. Would it be under the St. Joseph County Library System?

A. It would be a countywide system. The local community would make the decision as to what that looked like and what it was called ... With four different administrations for the four different libraries, there has to be some economies of scale in having one administration and delivering those services countywide.

Even Don Napoli at SJCPL noted that there probably wouldn't be much if any cost savings in consolidating libraries (South Bend Tribune article12/1/07 "Smaller Libraries Worried.") What we need is to have all Townships in the state to be fully served by a library or library district.

Q. One of the most striking aspects of the commission's report is the amount of power and responsibility that is placed in the hands of the county executive for functions that are now the responsibility of many different people in county government. Is there any thought that might be too much responsibility to concentrate in one individual?

A. If you look at the responsibilities that the mayors of South Bend and Mishawaka have, I would argue that it's not that much different in terms of responsibility. ... It makes sense to have one executive that is responsible for the administration of all of those offices, with qualified staff.

Q. Do you think there could be a reduction in the county work force?

A. I would anticipate that you will be able to do things more efficiently, which will probably mean less people. It certainly will mean less elected officials.

Q. What do you think can realistically be accomplished in the General Assembly, given the resistance to some aspects of this?

A. You won't have any trouble finding people who are opposed to any or all of the things that we have proposed. There are a lot of people who have a vested interest in the status quo. ... We make these recommendations with the idea that they all be implemented. Will that happen? Probably not.

Q. With the amount of power the county executive will have in appointing individuals to the various offices, it could be construed as a return to the political patronage system, with all the possibilities for corruption that that implies. How do you keep that from happening?

A. I would venture to say that I am not aware of any evidence that having officials appointed makes any difference one way or the other, from a corruption standpoint, than having officials elected. What I do know is that it would be very clear as to whose responsibility it was.

HELLO!!! EARTH CALLING!!! IT'S CALLED A POLITICAL MACHINE.

... If there are tendencies in that direction, it will not be long before the community figures it out, elected or appointed.

Staff writer James Wensits:
jwensits@sbtinfo.com
(574) 235-6353

A County Czar?

Makes me cringe. I'd rather a seven member elected County Board with a County Manager.

Related story at wsbt.com: http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/12446856.html

Good points from the Chesterton Tribune

A point here is the lack of library service throughout the state and more than 300,000 are living in areas not served by libraries. This point desperately needs to be addressed.

Link: http://chestertontribune.com/Library/121210%20reform_report_takes_aim_at_state.htm

Text: Reform report takes aim at state's 'excellent' library system

By VICKI URBANIK

In its report for reforming local government, a state commission applauds the work of public libraries, saying that whether large or small, Indiana libraries provide “excellent” service.

The Indiana Commission on Local Government Reform’s report notes that Indiana libraries ranked second overall in the National Center for Education Statistics’ national benchmarks on services, collection, revenue and expenditures.

With such a record, one may think that Indiana’s library system isn’t broken and doesn’t need fixing. But the commission thinks otherwise, recommending that Indiana’s 239 library districts consolidate into 92 single county districts or even multi-county districts.

If carried out, the recommendation would bring an end to the Westchester Public Library system, which would be melded in with the county library system and controlled largely by the county council and a new county executive.

The commission’s report said the library consolidation would help expand library services to all areas of the state. Its report states: “Indiana has too many library districts and administrators, but Indiana does not have too many libraries. We recommend maintaining the current mix of geographically dispersed facilities to allow districts to serve local populations and needs.”

But would consolidation of libraries guarantee library services for, say, residents of Adams or Clay counties, two counties with limited library service?

Ironically, no, said Westchester Public Library Director Phil Baugher.

“They would be taxed for a library,” he said of the residents in the new countywide library system. But in order to be guaranteed library services, he said, lawmakers “would have to mandate library services.”

Baugher said he’s disturbed that the Indiana Commission on Local Government Reform tied the issue of library consolidation with the goal of expanding library services to unserved areas. He said he and other WPL supporters believe that the two issues are separate.

If, Baugher said, the true goal is to expand library services, the state could require, or encourage, communities to contract with the larger library systems in their area, or use a township by township approach and have township trustees negotiate with a library provider.

“Why not address the unserved areas?” he said.

The report states that an estimated 395,000 Indiana residents in 38 counties do not have access to library services, and that 29 counties have areas that are “underserved” by contractual library services. The report also states that Indiana libraries employ almost twice as many staff per 10,000 people than the national average.

“By reducing the number of (library) districts, we can address current unserved and underserved areas and achieve additional economies of scale within administrative and purchasing expenditures,” the report states.

The recommendation for consolidating small library systems like WPL comes despite ample public support for smaller libraries, judging by all the comments posted on the commission’s webpage in support of keeping local library systems.

“I think that’s pretty obvious that they ignored the public’s comments,” Baugher said, speculating if the report was predetermined even before the public input was received. “To me, it shows they weren’t responsive to public.”

The report overall focuses largely on consolidation of government services. But Baugher said bigger isn’t always better and often can be more expensive.

He cited as one example the new $100 million Marion County public library that came in $50 million over budget.

In addition to consolidation of libraries, the report recommends that the taxing unit with the largest assessed value would be given the authority to approve the library system’s budget and bond issues. That could mean that this responsibility would fall to the Porter County Council; the report also calls for having a new county executive -- an elected post that would replace the three county commissioners --- oversee the new consolidated library.

Baugher said that with the move toward capping property taxes, “it’s very easy to predict what would happen.”

If the county government was in danger of hitting its property tax cap, it could offset that budget loss by cutting the library budget.

“It could be devastating to the libraries,” he said.

WPL supporters have waged a visible campaign aimed at drumming up public support for keeping WPL a local library system independent of the Porter County library system. Baugher said WPL will continue to make its position known to state legislators.

He said he finds it disturbing that local government, including libraries, seem to be getting blamed for property tax problems over which they have no control. He said local government has been forced to spend millions of dollars in interest due to the lack of property tax revenues, even though they had nothing to do with the late tax bills.

Baugher said he fears what might happen in the upcoming session of the Indiana Legislature, since state legislators are under so much pressure to pass tax reform legislation and that they might “look at libraries as scapegoats.”



Posted 12/12/2007

A comment from the Indianapolis Star that may have merit for further study

From the Indianapolis Star: http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071212/LOCAL/312120012

Below is one of the few comments that really had merit (I am unsure as to why the link points toward topix.net). It would need some tweaking, but we still retain local control, but there are fewer taxing authorities rather than multiple taxing authorities.

The author of this blog certainly encourages ideas.

Comment # 84 wrote (http://www.topix.net/forum/source/indianapolis-star/TAP10LBS7DJ48A8PH/p5) : I've posted about this here before. I grew up in Virginia, where the local government system is similar to what is proposed here. Everything below state government is either the county or an incorporated city. Urban counties have an elected county supervisor with an elected board of commissioners. Other counties have a board of supervisors that serve both legislative and executive functions. But all schools, library, parks, transportation, assessment, and other functions come under the ultimate budgetary and TAXING authority of the county-level goverment. It makes it much easier to participate in your local government, because you hold those few county supervisors responsible for all of it.(There are also elected school boards, but they are responsible for planning, curriculum, etc., only - their budgets and any necessary tax increases are subject to the approval of the county supervisors). Cities work basically the same way, but they are considered separate entities from the counties. There are also towns, but their budgets and taxing authority lie with the county.

So there are very few taxing authorities in Virginia. That's what Indiana needs - consolidation of taxing authorities. You can go ahead and elect whomever you want - school boards, assessors, clerks, library boards, etc.- but consolidate the taxing at one level in each city or county. Then we know exactly who to praise or blame for the level of taxes we pay to the county. And when one person or council is responsible, they'll make darn sure your taxes don't go up too much, whether it's for schools, libraries, roundabouts, whatever.

Long story short, Virginia has been consistently named one of the best state economies and has one of the lowest overall tax burdens in the nation. Indiana has not been. We need to LOOK AROUND at Virginia and other state examples of how to run a lean, efficient system of state and local government.

Superb FACTS from the Westchester Public Library

Mr. Baugher, Director of the Westchester Public Library, has noted an extremely IMPORTANT fact. Namely that in the report (as published) the only opinions noted were the ones for Library Consolidation. There were MANY who opposed consolidation, but those opinions were not shared. In my opinion this makes the report skewed to what the Governor may have been looking for. I want facts, not conjecture. We dare not let those who "think" they know better decide what is best for us. WE must educate our State Administration and Legislators and prove to them that for many of us consolidation would be a death knell for small rural communities.

MANY have the sentiment that if a problem exists in Indianapolis, it must be a problem statewide. Though if a problem exists outside of Indianapolis that needs to be addressed and the problem doesn't exist in Indianapolis, then there is no problem.

Below is a note I received from Mr. Baugher:

Westchester Public Library

December 12, 2007

Talking Points and Responses to

“Streamlining Local Government”

Some General Observations

The report, “Streamlining Local Government” speculates about how local government might be altered to reduce property taxes for taxpayers. Unfortunately, the recommendations appear to be based largely on a variety of unsubstantiated assumptions and leaps in logic. The report lacks concrete examples and data calculations of how much might be saved for each recommendation. The recommendations also do not address the negative impact the recommendations might have on the delivery of local government services if enacted.

The web site for the Indiana Commission on Local Government Reform contains extensive summarized comments received from the public through the commission’s web site, e-mail address or by regular mail. The comments are overwhelmingly opposed to the consolidation of libraries. Unfortunately, the report fails to acknowledge these comments and cherry picks only the comments supporting their recommendations to be included in the text of the report.

Recommendation #18 - Reorganize library systems by county and provide permanent library service for all citizens.

The report acknowledges the high ranking of Indiana’s public libraries in all benchmarks.

Small libraries obviously contribute greatly to the overall high ranking.

Consolidation and addressing areas not served by a public library are two separate issues.

Bigger is not necessarily better especially if library facilities are centralized and are not conveniently located in the communities served.

There are already legal mechanisms in place that would allow libraries to merge together and form larger library districts if desired by their library boards. Permissive legislation might be considered that would allow residents to merge library districts through a referendum without relying on library boards to approve the issue.

Larger libraries tend to incur more debt through bonding and building.

The remodeled and expanded central library of the Indianapolis-Marion County Public Library was 2 years overdue, cost over $103 million, was $50 million over budget, and a library trustee plead guilty of a felony related to the building project. Larger libraries have a greater concentration of resources that could be lost through theft, mismanagement, or the simple fiscal or operational ineptitude of library officials.

The issue of un-served areas can only be resolved by mandating all citizens be taxed for library service and by allowing townships to either create their own library district, contract for service with an existing district for a negotiated price, or to merge permanently with an existing district would allow a township to chose the best and most economical option for their citizens.

Forcing un-served areas into the larger libraries would be more expensive and in some cases, citizens would be responsible for paying off the old debt incurred by the larger unit.

Consolidation would not guarantee that existing library buildings in merged units would continue to be operated, or that the un-served areas would receive library building of their own in return for the new taxes they would be required to pay. Larger units tend to build and operate larger buildings.

Consolidation of libraries would reduce the number of library trustees who are available throughout the state to respond to the concerns of their citizens, reducing accountability. Fewer trustees would also reduce public oversight of libraries and could lead to increased corruption and mismanagement.

Library trustees are volunteers and are not paid for their service.

Most library directors serving in small libraries are not full-time administrators, serving more as professional librarians than as bureaucrats.

Consolidation would reduce the number of library directors in the state, but the library buildings they operate would still need professional supervision and guidance.

New, proposed certification standards for library employees recently proposed by the Indiana State Library require public libraries to employ many more trained professional librarians throughout the state, not fewer.

Merging the various automated systems in libraries in the state would take a long time and cost millions of dollars.

The general public appears to be very satisfied with the quality of their library service, and is not clamoring for radical change.

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 only account for 3.33% of total property tax expenditures.

Public library property tax collections are limited by the same state regulations and annual multipliers as other local units of government.

Public libraries and other local units of government are not responsible for the recent and dramatic increases in property taxes due to the elimination of the inventory tax and changes in the method of property assessment. Public libraries should not be singled out for blame. Any new property tax controls should be applied equitably among all units of government to insure no one area of service suffers dramatically.

Public libraries are usually very conservative and if their recent expenditures have been high in comparison with other local units of government, it has been because public libraries have been required to provide their public with many new technologies. If we want our citizens to continue to be competitive in the modern world, we should consider how we can improve the information services provided by our public libraries, not how these services can be reduced.

A recent study of Indiana’s public libraries concluded that for every $1 spent on public libraries, a direct value of $2.38 was returned to the public.

Recent, new regulations already require that bond issues in excess of $7 million be approved by the county board of tax and capital review. A referendum might also be considered to determine the success or failure of a bond issue. Let the voters decide.

This proposal could disenfranchise all of the citizens who don’t reside in the municipal or county unit not having the greatest proportion of assessed valuation.

The proposal would give a body the authority to reduce the budget of another local unit of government without having any real responsibility for providing the public service of the second unit. This would greatly reduce accountability to the public.

The existing and proposed “circuit breaker” legislation limits the total amount of taxes that can be collected in a county. If the larger fiscal body in the county found its property tax collections being limited by the circuit breaker ceiling, it would very likely slash the library’s budget or could even conceivably close the public library to reduce their loss. Again, property tax controls should be applied equitably among all units of government.

If the issue is really one objecting to appointed boards having the ability to levy taxes, then the obvious solution is to change the law and require public library boards be elected and to not jeopardize the public libraries they serve.

The general public appears to be very satisfied with the cost of library service, and is not clamoring for radical change.

Miscellaneous Points

Public libraries operate very efficiently and cooperatively. Many libraries already participate in a variety of cooperative purchasing programs. Some libraries share automated systems and are working towards establishing shared bibliographic catalogs. Libraries also participate in interlibrary loan programs, arranging for the loan of and borrowing of materials between libraries on behalf of their patrons upon request. There are also a variety of reciprocal borrowing agreements throughout the state that allow library patrons to travel to a neighboring library district to borrow materials directly.

Good comments about ICLGR report...

Go to: http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/12379986.html

From a fellow librarian (unedited)

Steve,
Consolidation my left foot! This is going to cost the
tax payers of Lincoln Twp and the Town of Walkerton
over 5 million dollars! We had a donor who wanted to
GIVE us a parcel of land worth 1/2 million dollars and
then BUILD us the building of our choice and design
for another 2.5 million dollars. We are in the middle
of a fund-raising campaign to raise 1.5 million
dollars(or more). Needless to say, this mess that has
been conjured up by this "Blue Ribbon" commission is
going to cost the people of Walkerton in a BIG way.
Not only do we loose a new building (at no cost to the
tax payers!!) we are now going to have to absorb all
the debt service from South Bend (sorry I just can't
stand to call them St. Joseph County Public Library),
Mishawaka PL and you (New Carlisle-Olive Twp). We are
talking debt service of 33 million from SJCPL,
probably 15 million from Mishawaka, and whatever you
have on yours(10-12 million??). Our tax rate is LOW,
very low. SJCPL is over 3 times as much as Walkerton
rate. So the people of Walkerton get screwed out of a
NEW cost-free, no debt service library AND get their
tax rates tripled!! Somehow I fail to see the cost
savings in that!!But then again, I am just a little
hick, from a little town, with a little library and
according to the "powers that be" I should just stop
breathing and go meekly into that good night. I don't
think so bubba! You got voted in and we can damn sure
vote you out! I am still smarting from the sale of the
Toll Road, so don't get me started here!! God knows
the Walkerton Public Library saw no monies from the
sale of the Toll Road, yet the funds were supposed to
be paid to the "infrastructure" of the various
counties adjacent to the Toll Road. If Libraries
aren't infrastructure, then I sure don't know what
infrastructure is!!

And don't get me started on school consolidation!
Walkerton Schools are a consolidation of Polk(Marshall
Co), Lincoln and Liberty Twps(St. Joseph Co.)& Johnson
Twp ( LaPorte Co). There are approximately 6,000
students in all the schools. Oregon-Davis (Starke Co)
is also a consolidated school, but has a very small
enrollment (less than 3000). The were the State
champions in both boys AND girls basketball last year.
If the rules apply again to small schools, then OD
will close and all the kids will be bussed to Knox.
South Central is also small and would be closed also.
And don't forget Union-North Schools(both St Joe
County and Marshall County)which has a small
enrollment. All this will cease and the kids will be
bussed to either South Bend ( which has a 42%
graduation rate!!) or Plymouth.

According to this formula,there will be only ONE town
allowed in each county in the near future, and all the
rest of the areas will be designated as Area A, Area B
and Area C. Walkerton is already treated like we are
Area Z, so it would be nothing new for us. I once
actually got a phone call from someone at the
City-County Building who asked if Walkerton was
actually IN St. Joe County!! I was appalled!!

Needless to say, I am IRATE about all this. I
certainly see no cost savings, nor do I see how this
will improve services for my patrons. I only see this
as an excuse to disenfranchise everyone who lives
"outside the by-pass" and burden them with more taxes
and give them less for those tax dollars.
I, for one, plan on giving them hell until they drag
me out of my building kicking and screaming.

Connie Swanson
Director
Walkerton-Lincoln Twp. Public Library

Some said that...

I was providing incorrect information regarding the consolidation of public libraries here in Indiana. They particularly pointed out that there was nothing written down about it at all regardless of the links that were later provided to them.

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.

Indiana has 239 library districts serving communities ranging from approximately 250 to 833,000 in population. Many library districts, large and small, provide excellent library service. In fact, in 2004, Indiana libraries ranked second overall, and at or near the top 20 in 22 national benchmarks on services, collection, revenue and expenditures published by the National Center for Education Statistics. Libraries are important community assets that provide a variety of specific services based on local needs.

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. Indiana libraries employ almost twice as many staff (full-time equivalents) per 10,000 population than the national average.

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 Marion County, this responsibility should be assigned to the mayor. We further recommend the establishment 34 of grant funding to offset the significant technology costs that may accrue in converting and merging current systems.

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.

Indiana libraries have a number of longstanding statewide, regional and local arrangements for the provision of joint training, purchasing and services. While much attention has been focused on the Indiana Cooperative Library Services Authority as the result of the PROBE study conducted by Indiana Office of Management and Budget, there are additional joint resources and service arrangements that deserve review regarding effectiveness and cost.

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.