« Delane's War | Main | How to get to the top of Google rankings »
October 23, 2009
The end of the MLA
Earlier this year I was mugged by the MLA in Swindon. At the time I was trying to explain that in order for a council to make rational and sensible decisions about the library budget, the figures have to be presented clearly so that councillors can see how money is spent on which parts of the service. I was saying that the presentation should show how much each library costs, how much the management structure costs, how much bibliographic and other 'behind the scenes' services, outreach, home delivery, etc cost, each figure separated, as best one can, and shown alongside how much those services are used and what the potential use might be. There also has to be a clear and understandable analysis of all the overhead costs of the service. This was the same explanation I had given in my report 'Who's in Charge?' five years ago and have always used when working in any council. I said that the role a councillor plays in applying common sense to setting priorities can only work if they are fully in the picture about what goes on.
The MLA told Swindon council that my case was not properly argued - when I had only got as far as asking the questions- and secretly, behind my back, advised Swindon not to listen to what I was saying. I complained to the DCMS about this and eventually, the MLA and DCMS agreed that the behaviour of the senior MLA officers, including the chief executive and chair, had been below standard and inappropriate and they apologised. The apology was to me, not to the people of Swindon, as it obviously should have been. And by subsequently refusing many many invitations to talk the matter over, I have no certainty at all that the MLA really realised what they had done, and cannot be certain that they will not do it again. The real shame was that this was a golden opportunity to help other councils if they are faced by budget pressure as so many of them now are. Open and wide discussion of how to prepare and assess the library budget is a really important matter. It still is
For the MLA it matters not. Both the Labour party (in the form of Lyn Brown's all party group report) and the Conservative Party (in a clear speech last week by Ed Vaizey, restating that which he has already said) have decided that the MLA is not the appropriate body to handle those aspects of the library service. After the election whoever wins, there will be some new body.
What does matter though is that there should be an understanding of why the MLA failed after 3 incarnations in only 7 years. There was Re:source created by Matthew Evans, there was the empire of Chris Batt and then we had the admiralty of Roy Clare.
The case for a non departmental body was argued to the Select Committee in 2001 and they agreed with it, but in 2005, much the same group of people heavily criticised both MLA and DCMS for the way they had treated libraries. Both bodies clearly and obviously decided to ignore that criticism and drove onwards down whichever path they thought they were on. In 2007, somebody decided that things were not right, because abruptly and without explanation or any reporting, Chris Batt left and Roy was appointed. There was no public analysis of the reason for this change and therefore no certainty that lessons were being learned, whatever they might be. The MLA has a board of commissioners, but the minutes of board meetings rarely talk about libraries or any of the issues that have seemed to matter, even though the public library service is by far the largest item in the MLA portfolio. It has always been an opaque organisation without clear purpose, objective or lines of accountability. Chairmen have come and gone but this has not changed. The scorn with which it appeared to feel able to treat the people of Swindon (who complained bitterly about the conduct of the MLA) implies that it does not seem to feel it has a responsibility to the public. The board members do not appear to scrutinise or challenge seriously the activities of the management but only ever to offer it support-- as if they could not be bothered to act in a public role. I think these people are open to huge criticism for their conduct. It is beyond belief that in all these years those board members have never asked and obtained a satisfactory explanation of why library lending has declined or book stocks have fallen.
All these things mean that before a new body is set up there is a lot of thinking to be done. This time the purpose and function must be clearly defined and someone has to say how such a body will perform a role to benefit the public directly and account for their work. It needs to obtain the information that can be used to monitor properly the performance and use of the public library service, in a way that the MLA has never attempted to do and, obviously it needs a small number of the right people to achieve the task it is set.
I have the bruises from the last attempt, but I do not think that just closing down the library (and archive) functions of the MLA and creating a new body, on its own will do the job that is needed. There has to be a more detailed plan- and it should be drawn up before an election
Posted by Perkins at October 23, 2009 8:37 AM