« New Statesman | Main | Closing the libraries on the Wirral »
October 14, 2008
About the new public library review
Readers of this blog have seen and experienced enough reviews of the public library service both nationally and in their local councils to know they are almost always a sham. As I write that senetence I cast my mind back to the many moments of hope we have had that at last someone would listen, be wise and be sensible, but it never happens.
Even the famous Select Committee hearings of 2004-5 which appeared to have produced a good report were, disgracefully, turned into a quagmire of inaction and excuse by the DCMS and MLA.
So what can be said this time? - well, there are a few meagre words of advice to throw on to the pile and they consist basically of a list of people and groups whose voices should be heard, but never normally are.
Firstly listen to the public. In a professional way they can be divided up into groupings to help make that practical- by age, by background, users, lapsed users, non users-- all these groups have an interest and a view about what they believe a public library service is useful for both for themselves and for the community at large.
Secondly listen to front line staff. We can be sure that CILIP and all the turgid quangoes, agencies and committees who feature on this blog so often will present endless evidence, but they never include the honest views of those people who work at the counters of the libraries or who spend their days with library readers or computer users. These are not the 'professional' staff but they have really important views about their customers and, indeed, about their management.
Thirdly discuss the subject calmly and at length with the people in invididual councils who are REALLY responsible for managing the service, viz, the portfolio councillors, the directors and the senior cultural officers.. We don't want the official council position on why they should be given more funds, we want the humdrum detail -- what training is given to new portfolio holders? what information do Ward councillors need? What are the real issues within a council operation? How do you buy stock to meet back list and front list needs? How big should the book fund be? How do you face and handle a budget cut without reducing the service to the public? How do you build a staff roster that includes evenings and Sundays? What would be a useful role for the MLA? the DCMS? what should the audit commission inspect? what information would help the public to participate? What information should replace the CIPFA data? How should we do local market research in a cost effective way? How do you listen constructively to library users? how do you keep the local press in the picture and not alienate them? How is the money spent and what are the possibilities for redirecting it? What should be talked about in a local council review of libraries? How do you find out the local need? How do we plan for the future if the demograhic characteristics are changing? Can we do a better job for younger people? and older people?
This review could be an opportunity for the Minister and his or her staff, truly, to get an understanding of and a meaningful relationship with local councils in a way they just do not do at present. That would be a good outcome. If the Ministerial team just experienced the workings of half a dozen councils, that would be a real step forward.
Conducted in this way we would find that the 'wicked issues' are not about mobile phones or even coffee bars, but they are about staff training, what books and journals to stock, reference books,opening hours, the state of the buildings, cleaning toilets, plastic jackets, management structures, needlessly expensive library management systems, demaracation between 'professional' and 'non-professional' staff over management, the role of councillors, the realities of working across councils and with consortia, and a host of other important topics that currently are off the radar. If the review contemplated these matters with a tight focus on 'what the people want' -- then we might get some decent improvements.
From what I read, though, this is not the review that has been called for.
Here, published the next day, are Terms of Reference of the review and Laura Swaffield's views of them
Posted by Perkins at October 14, 2008 11:39 AM