« January 2010 | Main | March 2010 »
February 28, 2010
General Appeal for Donations or Advertising
Every so often we appeal for anyone using this site to make a donation to the costs or, if they have something to advertise, to do so.
There is a "donation" button in the right hand tramline, please do use it, and for adverts, the best way is to contact Karen at Berkshire Publishing. Rates are remarkably low and negotiable. The site is receiving over 4,000 hits a day at present and we have been told it has the highest level of readership of public library blogs in the UK.
Posted by Perkins at 9:35 PM | Comments (1)
February 26, 2010
Brighton cuts its Book Fund
Every day there is news from one council or another of some significant cut in the library service; opening hours, book fund, some part of the service or other. Every strike of the knife cuts another reader, cuts another child off from their inheritance, cuts another book from the hands of a young person who has just discovered the pleasure.
These are the questions the DCMS review and the MLA should have been dealing with instead of occupying themselves with the nonsense about digital books and other projects. Rather than wallowing in their own interdepartmental PR campaigns they should have concentrated on where these cuts would come and shown councils how to reduce overhead instead of service.
Where is the Society of Chief Librarians while all this goes on? Entertaining themselves in Edinburgh Castle at our expense. Shame on all of them.
Posted by Perkins at 9:42 PM | Comments (14)
February 25, 2010
BBC television
BBC One will broadcast in the West region a report about community libraries, presented by Shirley Burnham.
Inside Out West : Monday, 1st March, 19.30 BBC One (West only)
Those unable to view the programme on Monday should be able to access a pod-cast after it is broadcast.
The programme features a number of library authorities in the West country and also the London Borough of Hillingdon
Posted by Perkins at 9:52 AM | Comments (0)
February 24, 2010
The dangers of joining up library authorities
An experienced chief librarian was advocating creating 'regional or sub regional' library authorities and in response one of our most experienced readers and commentators replies:
""Hoiking" library services "out of local authority control and into regional or sub-regional trusts able to deliver economies of scale" will do nothing to resolve the problem but merely make management even more remote from the users than is already the case. The cause of the decline in library use is firmly rooted in the failing of senior management, cabinet members and central government, making our libraries even more remote via some form or regional management will exacerbate the problem. While it might be necessary for library authorities to co-operate in the provision of things such as providing a single catalogue, and the purchase of electronic information resources services this is quite feasible without centralising the whole structure. Even this limited centralisation needs to be treated with caution, as large book purchasing consortiums are prone to ignore the importance of local bookshops and small publishers, which form a part of the popular literary culture that sustains libraries. "
These observations are so true and describe how the London LIbraries Change Programme is proposing that just such an amalgamation will bring improvement, where there is no real reason at all why it should
Posted by Perkins at 7:53 PM | Comments (4)
February 23, 2010
A really shocking idea
You know, Perkins, I think we are all barking (or miaowing) up the wrong tree and that's why we're not getting anywhere. We can't understand why the powers-that-be cannot grasp that libraries need to have well-maintained buildings, open long hours, with knowledgeable staff, quiet places for study, and a wonderful book collection. It's simple logic, surely? But I think the truth is that everyone who works for, or influences, the library service is fed up with their 'boring' job of running a library. They want to work in a more 'exciting' field, such as music, theatre, technology, management consultancy or youth-work. That's why they are continually coming up with daft ideas such as "Get It Loud", or going to conferences called The Edge (they like to feeling 'edgy'), or getting excited about IT systems for automated book checkout (when there's hardly any books left to check out). Why don't they just change careers and let the people who DO love books, reading and silence, take over. Then we might actually get a decent library service.
Posted by Perkins at 1:10 PM | Comments (8)
February 22, 2010
A comical and catastrophic failure of the Institutions of Government
It is not hard to extrapolate quite reasonably from the piece yesterday, to realise that we have been witnessing is not a failure of the public library service. Anyone could run a decent public library service- how to run good public libraries is totally obvious- but a comical, if catastrophic, failure of all those institutions we rely on and call our government and our society. All those institutions on that list have been unable, in the matter of public libraries to face their daily responsibility to the public and carry it out. It is natural to imagine their failure might apply to everything they do. Their response to every problem is to ignore the public and parade themselves in front of each other. Every single one of them. They cannot do the job for which the public has allowed them to be appointed-- any of them. They cannot bear to listen to or seek out what the public wants and they cannot contrive to work in pursuit of the general public interest. They find it impossible.
Ministers depend on Departments. In the avoidance of making decisions to benefit the public, Departments create quangoes. Quangoes seek Consultants to affirm their own existence; and Consultants seek the next appointments. Local Government defends its independence from national government more strongly than it works for its own residents. Nowhere in the cycle does man or woman claim a responsibility to the public and call for appropriate action.
If we were talking about improvement in Government this is what we ought to be facing - this is the real political issue. And it is hard because it has never been the central political issue, in our country, before. We do not have the language, the media or the method to deal with it.
The real 'Broken Society' lies not in the streets of our towns but in the boulevards of our capital cities.
Posted by Perkins at 6:11 PM | Comments (0)
A former Chief Librarian writes
Librarianship courses have always concentrated on teaching technical skills while barely lifting the lid of the general management toolbox. The course I attended simply got me onto the professional ladder where my real learning began.
The skills being taught today are often too theoretical and in many cases redundant, as good managers already in the workplace find better, cheaper, faster ways of getting things done. Syllabuses need to be brought up to date and made more responsive to changes in the workplace; existing professionals (not CILIP) should be hard-wired into this process.
The skills that are needed to run a large public service - customer care, change management, entrepreneurship, negotiation, strategic thinking - need to be there in latent form and developed through experience and mentoring by those with the experience. Employers and elected members also need to see those skills as desirable rather than a threat!
To get real benefit out of all this, we also need to hoik library services out of local authority control and into regional or sub-regional trusts able to deliver economies of scale and concentrate on delivering the best possible service for the lowest possible price without being used alternately as a political plaything and a budget patch.
On the subject of fawning, I know only a handful of professional libarians who have been able to sustain that approach. The majority of chief librarians have never held back from swift, direct and very frank exchanges with DCMS and MLA both individually and through SCL, a small voluntary body that should not be confused with the unloved, unfocussed and near-extinct CILIP.
Posted by Perkins at 8:49 AM | Comments (3)
February 21, 2010
Get it Loud in Libraries
Here we are going round the country saying that libraries are a good place to work and do your private study and homework, if you can't do it at home, and we are told that 'The MLA have commissioned the "Get It Loud In Libraries programme", designed to ‘give people especially young people who love music a damn good time in a library’ to roll out UK wide'.
Are they Mad? Why don't we also have a campaign to "Poke someone in the eye in a library and make it hurt". How much are we paying for this one?
It's not that one objects to events in libraries, especially those intended to widen the audience, but firstly, there is so much to be done that is basic and fundamental, that it is hard to understand why anyone would make this a priority for money and effort and secondly the tone of voice of the slogan is so patronising and irritating that one wonders who has given it the time of day.
In plain English it says "We despise people who have a serious use for libraries. Get out of our way." Why do you have to say that? It is aggressive and embarrassing
Posted by Perkins at 6:48 PM | Comments (5)
People and parasites
The item below this one says 'Why the MLA has failed so badly (in respect of public libraries over the past 10 years or so)?'
But when you come to think of it, it isn't just the MLA (The Museums, Libraries and Archives Commission) -- one could just as well have written
-Why has the DCMS (The Department of Culture Media and Sport) failed so badly?
-Why has CILIP (The Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals) failed so badly?
-Why has the Audit Commission failed so badly?
-Why has the LGA (The Local Government Association) failed so badly?
-Why has the ACL (The Minister's Advisory Council on Libraries) failed so badly?
-Why has the Society of Chief Librarians failed so badly?
-Why has The House of Commons Culture Select Committee failed so badly?
-Why has Parliament failed so badly?
-Why have most local councils failed so badly?
-Why have most cabinets of local councils failed so badly?
-Why have most Members of Parliament failed so badly (Lords and Commons)?
-Why have so many Ministers failed so badly?
-Why have the major political parties failed so badly?
-Why have 'London Councils' failed so badly?
-Why has 'London Libraries' (formerly the London Libraries Development Agency) failed so badly?
-Why has MLA London? failed so badly
-Why did the other regional MLA offices fail so badly and have to be closed and why have they been replaced by regional 'Engagement' offices, which are failing so badly?
-Why has the London Cultural Improvement Group failed so badly?
-Why has the London Libraries Change Programme Board failed so badly?
-Why has The Scottish Parliament failed so badly?
-Why has SCILIP (The Scottish equivalent of both CILIP and MLA) failed so badly?
-Why has the Welsh Assembly failed so badly?
-Why has CYMAL (The Welsh equivalent of both CILIP and MLA) failed so badly?
-Why has CIPFA ( The Chartered Institute of Public Finance Accountants) failed so badly?
-Why has IdeA (The Improvement and Development agency for local government) failed so badly?
Because not only is it true to say that in most places the public library service is much worse than it was ten years ago, but all these people whom I have listed were paid, or elected, to make public services including this one, better than they were. Some of them were paid extremely large amounts. Each institution thinks their role is to please another - and to obtain funds by doing so. But few of them think of pleasing the public. They can't do: otherwise the results would be so much better. Use of the service would have increased in every way- but it hasn't.
And the answer is that, in this respect at least, our gross national institutions are in contempt of the people who they should serve and who pay for them. It is quite a problem.
(I have deliberately omitted the Northern Ireland bodies- because they, at least, it seems to me, are engaged in an attempt at serious and genuine improvement, as are a small number of local Councils in England, Scotland and Wales)
Ten years ago there was only one person in the DCMS outside local government who was concerned with public libraries. Now we have hundreds.
"Who will bell the cat?" - as John Delane taunted, when he caused the Government to resign!
Posted by Perkins at 11:56 AM | Comments (2)
February 19, 2010
Why the MLA has failed so badly
Yet another badly written report was published by the MLA this week about adult training. The language was appalling and the content meaningless. At the same time Perkins was present (if asleep) at some entirely practical meetings in local councils about making improvements to their public libraries. On this blog there has been some challenging thinking about the mechanisms that public libraries operate of the kind in which the MLA would never indulge. The BBC were filming in Hillingdon and asking 'why don't more councils offer a service like this and where is the national leadership?" It all made me think why the MLA has failed over 8 years to make any impression at all on the decline of the already disappointing performance of most of the public library service.
The document that was published was a rather supercilious attempt to explain the local councils the significance of a move of funding of adult education from being the responsibility of the Learning and Skills Council, to local authorities. I won't go in to it. But it seemed to me that the problem lay as much in the tone as in the lack of substance. MLA tries to inhabit the world of central government where large agendas and policies are passed around like cakes at a childrens' tea party. They come from the kitchen that provides all things, the treasury, and they are designed to pacify the small people. But the MLA is so small and so insignificant as to resemble a jam tart among the glorious chocolate eclairs; a cup cake in the trifle.
What really would be much better would be if the MLA was funded voluntarily out of necessity by the local councils themselves- if councils (rather than the DCMS) were saying - tell us how to make libraries better, help us with our musuems, support our archive operation and we will pay you for your help, then it would have a meaningful agenda and a genuine need to achieve results instead of more barrels of waflle. Its board should a group of leaders of councils along with other helpful voices. Its chair should be a senior figure in local government a leading MP, or an experienced commercial manager familiar with dealing with the public. It should be a resource of consumer information to support the local work that is carried out. At present it is none of these things; a rowing boat without oars in a whirlpool. War and Punishment
Those are the changes that are needed if we are going to set up a new Libraries Development agency. .
Why does one say all this? Because - as the annual figures are about to show-- in its eight years of expensive existence the MLA has done absolutely nothing to improve the state of our declining public library service. Nothing
In fact the accusation is going to be loudly made that where opportunities to improve were available, the MLA has deliberately avoided them.
(PS This was all in my submission to the current DCMS review of public libraries when they first asked in October 2008)
Posted by Perkins at 6:06 PM | Comments (5)
February 17, 2010
Public library information
Martyn writes
"Most of us who are Library users will never know what the CIPFA figures are because they hide them away from the public who pay for them. It is about time that they were published free online".
CIPFA is the Chartered Institute of Public Finance Accountants. They are a private company or charity. They provide training and accountancy functions to civil servants and local government officers of all kinds. Among the many things they do is compile annual data about the performance and cost of public library services. Local councils subscribe to the service and in return are sent copies of the data.
If a member of the public wants to see the spread sheet that contains the data they have to pay over £400. The spreadsheeet anyhow is enormous and complicated and only contains one years data: there is no comparison with previous years. It is very hard to understand or draw sensible conclusions without considerable research. A local councillor who carries responsibility for the library service would struggle to find meaningful information within it.
The 1964 libraries Act requires the Secretary of state to gather such data as is required to superintend the service. Apart from the CIPFA process the minister does nothing else.
CIPFA data on public libraries for April 2008- March 2009 is not yet available, eleven months after the year finished
This operation is hopelessly inadequate and secretive in a public service for which the public pay over £1bn per annum. The DCMS and MLA should have improved the system, but year after year fail to do so. Martyn is completely right.
Posted by Perkins at 8:44 AM | Comments (0)
February 13, 2010
"Rotating" Stock in public libraries
Most Public library authorities have enormously expensive systems and routines for moving stock between their libraries. Would it give better service, be cheaper and be more environmently efficient to close down all those things and use the money to buy more copies of books and titles? Yes, probably, by a long way and a lot of money. Discuss.
Will that matter be in The Great Public Library Review- or even the Edge conference in Edinburgh Castle? Or was it discussed by the London LCP consultants, to whom it was an essential question (33 systems etc). No!
Posted by Perkins at 10:06 AM | Comments (18)
February 12, 2010
Let them eat Haggis
The SCL President, Fiona Williams is "very excited" about attending Edge 2010 (25-26 Feb). She says that "In the current climate, the conference could not be more apt"!
Perhaps, she could explain why this jamboree is necessary and how she possibly justifies the cost. Is it the Gala dinner or the opportunity to meet old and new friends that has got her so excited. Just think of those hotel bills, train and air tickets, the Gala black tie dinner in Edinburgh Castle and other expenses when councils face tough budget decisions and community libraries are under threat of closure or reduced hours, to save a few paltry thousand pounds! Is this really an essential meeting that will actually benefit library users or just another conference/jamboree or last hurrah. Or is it the meaningless conference agenda from which absolutely no improvement or action will ever come. Remember, Ms Williams, and your cronies, that we are paying the bill (and for all the other conferences, seminars etc), not least for the Gala dinner. At least Fiona Williams is "excited" even if I am not.
The Society of Chief Librarians needs to be kicked into the real world of struggling library assistants and an increasingly angry public who are sick to death of hearing about the expensive lives of state officials who moan about their inability to extract more tax from ordinary people.
Marie Antoinette to you. This conference should be cancelled now, this morning and the people who have organised it named and fined.
Posted by Perkins at 12:04 PM | Comments (5)
February 11, 2010
Library supply arrangements
I sent this email this morning to a number of political leaders, senior state officials and others
------
It is pleasing that the subject of restricting the ranges of books to public libraries has drawn attention. I have pasted, below, the correspondence between Alan Gibbons and Roy Clare of the last few days and thank them both for their concern.
The 'anti- competitive practice' to which Roy refers comes from two things that local library services do.
1. Each of 200 councils is allowed to specify the processing it requires to turn a printed book into a library book. Most specifications are different. This means that the councils can only be supplied by library suppliers capable of 200 methods of book processing. This 'choice' is expensive and makes no difference to what is offered to the public and is a waste of money. There are now only 2 or three suppliers who can do this work- and when they are given a contract to supply they have an effective monopoly.
2. Library authorities when awarding supply contracts (for example adult non fiction) tend to award them to just one supplier, as that has always been the accepted practice.
The net effect of these two is to create a market in which only the two large UK book wholesalers (through their library supply divisions) can offer to supply the large contracts. If the contract is awarded by a consortium of councils it can be up to £20m per annum and therefore, in terms of the competition between these two companies, the incentive to win is immense. If these two practices (1 and 2 above) were stopped, and there is no beneficial or legal reason why they operate -and there were just one specification for processing- then it would be possible to supply from the publishers own distribution centres and the market would once again be open. No one is suggesting that libraries need to buy from 100's of sources, but in the same way that independent booksellers do, it helps to buy from both wholesalers and a small number of appropriate distributors. The market is open, the stock is more relevant and the service to the public is better.
So for these reasons I think that it is important that thought and action, discussion and explanations should come not just from CILIP, but also from those in local government responsible for procurement practice and also the Publishers and Booksellers Associations, whose members are affected by these practices.
I urge the parties on-- this subject has been discussed for years and never resolved- but the market has backed us into this corner and we need to act. The work to solve this will cost nothing but a few people's time and the long term benefit will be enormous. As Hugh Andrew said, we need to understand exactly what is happening and then act. Let us try and resolve this by September in time for the nerxt round of local government budgets.
Thank you
Tim Coates
Posted by Perkins at 3:34 PM | Comments (8)
February 10, 2010
The selection of books in public libraries
Here and in The Bookseller concerns have been raised about current book supply chain procedures and practices to public libraries. The view has been expressed that the whole arrangement is disadvantageous in many ways, to the public and needs review and overhaul. One commenter speculated that in a contract for a large English public library consortium discounts as high as 47.5 % were being given for items selected by the supplier. This in turn has caused anxiety that at such levels of discount the selection criteria might be as much about the cost of the books as about their quality and appropriateness for individual libraries. These contracts are of enormous financial value - and the number oif suppliers is very limited. In football terminology to win or lose the largest contract is a matter of six points in the league: it is not surprising that suppliers will go to great lengths to win.
So far there has been no comment from any local authority, consortium or supplier each or any of whom might have chosen to distance themselves from doubtful practices and Alan Gibbon, who is the leader of The Campaign for the Book and an author raised the questions with Roy Clare in this exchange, which appears on Alan's blog
Dear Roy
As an author, library user, teacher and campaigner, I have been approached by several people concerned about the recent allegations that some library authorities have allowed exclusive supplier selection in return for higher discounts. I think there is real cause for concern here. This seems to be a most dangerous practice which may contravene the statutory duty of individual authorities to provide a “comprehensive” service to their communities.
You will understand that selecting new books based solely on discount will restrict choice and availability for library users. While many new books may be common to all library authorities, careful selection to meet the different needs of our diverse communities is essential. There is a real danger that literary works, those written in minority languages and works published by smaller publishers will be restricted. I understand that some publishers in the IPG are already concerned as I believe will be most authors.
I hope you will move quickly to issue a statement confirming that any arrangements for exclusive supplier selection should not be allowed.
I would be grateful if you would allow me to publish your reply on my Blog.
Alan Gibbons
Roy replied today....
Alan,
Public libraries should have a good stock selection policy to guide their decision-making and investment in book stock selection.
Working through consortiums and suppliers, libraries can effectively deliver book collections that meet public demand and local needs and interests.
Provided councils use supplier selection according to best practice principles, it can be a major efficiency saving for libraries services across the UK - helping to improve the effectiveness of buying stock; saving time on routine back office activity; reducing the costs for local authorities and creating best value for the public.
Responding to public demand, by providing popular and current titles whilst maintaining the integrity of collections so they serve the public and reflect local needs is important.
Library staff must be free to make decisions that consider their local communities’ needs. The MLA offers guidance on stocking material through Guidance on the Management of Controversial Material in Public Libraries issued last year.
Further training opportunities, delivered by CILIP, in writing and developing good stock selection policies, will soon be available.
In ‘best practice’ terms, authorities must avoid becoming vulnerable to anti-competitive practices or monopoly suppliers.
The MLA advocates that authorities balance the need for efficient buying with autonomy, independence, integrity and local choice.
The consumer, not the supplier, must be the driving force.
Roy Clare CBE
CEO, Museums, Libraries and Archives Council
Posted by Perkins at 9:45 PM | Comments (2)
The supply chain of books to public libraries
I have been saying for a long time that the whole supply chain for books and the catalogue information that accompanies publication needs to be overhauled. It is inefficient, expensive, wasteful, slow and it takes away the energy and excitement that publishers generate, so that public libraries are made dull.
I first said it in an article in the Guardian in 1998 and then in speech to the Library and Information show in the same year.
One of the reasons it is such an important subject is that it is the key to unlocking the back office costs that are wasteful. The effect of sorting out the supply chain will be much greater than improved efficiency of handling books. It gives the opportunity to refocus library management on the service given to the customer, day to day, instead of worrying about process behind the scenes.
For all these reasons I think it is one of the handful of absolutely essential subjects, of which the failure to address, has impeded significantly the improvements needed in public libraries. There are other key topics- budgeting, property management, understanding customer needs, selection of stock and opening hours are also on my list (but not ebooks or electronic changes, which I don't think have been relevant at all so far)
Andrew McIntosh, when he was briefly the minister, listened to me and understood. It was he who, following those conversations, initiated the project called Better Stock, Better Libraries. I desperately wanted to be involved in that work, because I could foresee that put in the wrong hands it would just go around in circles and not face the problems properly. I was excluded by the DCMS and MLA at the time, and the project did indeed go famously around in very expensive circles. It became the Price Waterhouse- MLA fiasco and achieved nothing.
The MLA is obviously the body that should have overseen this project. It needs to be lead properly and it needs to achieve results. However the MLA has never understood the essential nature of the problem. Chris Batt was fixed on the idea that books are history and the internet is what libraries are for- and so the problems of supply of books, were not worth tackling. He seemed to think that it would go away as the book stock diminished. But actually there was no reason why that should be true, and it hasn't happened.
The new MLA, whose first problem was to stop the expenditure on BSBL, have never tried to understand why that was an important project in the first place. Roy Clare appears not to have the experience to know why it should be tackled, or how to tackle it. He has got into position that he resists ideas coming in, certainly from this direction, and so the logs are jammed even more tightly than they ever were. That is a terrible and destructive shame and no one seems to know how to unblock it.
This problem is a cancer- it will destroy the public library service; it very nearly has already. It is quite solvable, but people need to be told what to do. It won't be resolved by consultation. what is needed is what I wrote in The Bookseller this week. These things are now imperative. We must do them.
I am at a loss-- and need someone else to take up this baton. Please.
Posted by Perkins at 7:46 AM | Comments (0)
February 9, 2010
Whatever happened to LISU?
While we endlessly await the public library figures for 2008-9 now nearly a year after they could and should have been available from the dreadful CIPFA public libraries office, I wondered whatever happened to LISU?
A common theme runnning through most reports and reviews of the last year has been the paucity of basic information about the performance and cost of the public library service. How on earth anyone is supposed to manage a budget when they don't even have to hand the relevant data from the year before last, goodness only knows
But LISU (The Libraries Information and Statistics Unit at Loughborough University) used to produce two very useful annual reports: the first was a ten year retrospective view of the most recent performance data and the second was an analysis of the most recent budget figures for each council. They weren't perfect but they were consistent from year to year and they were the only and therefore best figures available.
Without explanation the MLA - even though it is charged under the 1964 act with gathering such information as the Minister needs to superintend the public library service- has cancelled both reports. Why? what plans are there to replace them? What happened to the fabled promise of the MLA to 'do research' and to provide evidence for its improvement work.
If the MLA were to do anything useful at all (don't hold your breath), it would be as a repository of timely and comprehensive data about the performance of public libraries, as a resource for local councils to make meaningful comparisons. But it doesn't.
What is wrong with these people? The sooner they are confined to the dustbin, the better.
Posted by Perkins at 8:08 PM | Comments (0)
London Libraries Change Programme
David Ruse wrote on Lis Pub Libs;
List members may be interested to learn more about the London Libraries Change Programme, which is seeking to improve the quality and efficiency of public library services across London, and has the financial and policy support of the Capital Ambition Board - the regional improvement and efficiency partnership for London. This is a major change programme, which will not deliver overnight, but which is providing a framework for change and improvement across 33 very independent London boroughs, of varying politics, structures, systems and cultures. The following link will take you to fuller details of the programme, and in particular to Bulletin no. 5 which gives the latest position.
To which Andrew Wylie replied
Thanks to David Ruse for informing the list of the exsistence of the LLCP although list members might ask why it has taken nearly 3 years for this to happen? In the spirit of open and honest debate I would also like to bring to the attention of list members the following points:
Instead of tapping into the existing knowledge and expertise within the sector and taking on board some of the recommendations already outlined in the numerous reports/studies already done on the subject, the London Cultural Improvement Group, MLA London, Capital Ambitions and the LLCP Programme Board have spent £249,000, or more, on consultants.
The programme constantly talks of improving the delivery of services to meet customer needs but there has been no formal consultation with the public, front-line staff or the unions.
The 2008 'Feasability Study' states "Benmarking of workforce should be expected to identify areas for gains of between £1-£11m (1-10% of current workforce), I accept that this is based on the 2008 study but we have been denied access to the final version of the 'Workforce Benchmarking Study' seemingly it is not in the public domain.
We are all aware of the imminent public service budget cuts and the need for an improved and more efficient library service but how does the Programme Board envisage pushing these improvements through with less professional staff and in its own conclusion a lack of strong leadership?
And, as Alan has correctly pointed out all this is on top of the need for some kind of comprehensive consultation and research among the citizens of London, to whom this service belongs.
The first promise they make is 'To bring the level of service of the 33 boroughs up to that of the best' ... so what on earth have these people been doing in the past-- making them worse? And why do you need £300k of consultants to tell you to do that; not that anyone has yet defined what those standards are or when we might see some improvement.
If this is supposed to be a new level of communication my own question is - from whom do seek reassurance about the way this programme is managed- from the councillors of Westminster, where David is employed? or our own councillors? or whom?
Posted by Perkins at 6:05 PM | Comments (0)
Comprehensive and Efficient
I have often thought that only a clueless local government officer or a librarian could fail to understand the meaning of the words 'comprehensive' and 'efficient' in the context of a public library. They are perfectly normal English words.
The Act is very well written. The expression 'for all who desire to make use thereof' does not mean that no one is left out of the service- as has often been said. It means exactly what it says- and implies that councils should not pursue people who don't want to use libraries of whom there are quite a few. That is rather the same as saying that petrol stations should not try to sell petrol to people without cars-- it is a waste of time and money.
If libraries are designed for people not interested in reading (and there are quite a few that are like that) then they are irritating and frustrating for people who are seeking a good library.
On the other hand if members of the public who had previously not come across books suddenly find an interest in them, it is much better that the library is full - they will find it to be a truly fascinating place to explore.
Posted by Perkins at 8:43 AM | Comments (0)
February 7, 2010
A major scandal in the public library service
In the past few weeks I have called for a total review of book supply to public libraries. Following publication of this call I have received information that library suppliers have agreed book supply contracts at 47.5% discount off the cover price of books, so long as the supplier can make the selection of which books are supplied. These contracts apply to all the books supplied. The commitment, written or unwritten is that the supplier will select the best, most appropriate books for the local library, in the field.
There are, nowadays, only a handful suppliers, most of them are owned by the two national wholesalers. The value of the supply contracts is £90m per annum
You don't have to be too experienced to know that such a level of discount narrows the field of books that can be selected by wholesalers and suppliers to a very few new publications and a wide range of remainder stock. It is not hard to see what might be happening to make these contracts profitable. It is not possible to work comprehensively or appropriately at such a level of discount, as any small publisher will confirm,
If this is true then it represents a major breach of public trust and a total failure of professional conduct. It needs to be investigated, urgently and whatever malpractice is in hand should be stopped immediately
This is really serious.
Councils and suppliers always claim that these deals are subject to what they call 'commercial confidentiality' -- they should not be-- they should be open to proper public scrutiny otherwise situations of this nature will occur.
The shame is that the possibly virtuous idea of 'supplier selection' for public libraries has been completely misunderstood and distorted into this nonsense.
Posted by Perkins at 9:26 AM | Comments (5)
February 6, 2010
From a reader in Hertfordshire
(But could be more or less anywhere)
The problem with the libraries in Hertfordshire is that they open at such difficult times. They need to adapt and move into the 21st century
Posted by Perkins at 12:06 PM | Comments (1)
February 1, 2010
Lack of leadership costs money
BIC has published its latest appraisal of compliance with the standards specification of the national E4 libraries project-- these are those local authorities and suppliers using RFID (Radio Frequency Identification on library books) and EDI (Electronic Data Interchange)
What it says is that most suppliers either comply with standards or are committed to complying. But out of more than 200 library authorities in the UK, only 10 have yet signed up and have achieved accreditation. The programme is now over 2 years old.
I don't think anyone effectively explains to councils and library authorities why it is so expensive to allow councils to operate their own physical and electronic specifications for supply of goods and systems. Not only does any supplier have to be able to respond to orders requiring any one of two hundred processes and all the associated communication, but within the councils themselves, each council is set up to maintain, specify and tender for its own specifications. Each council library service has its own experts and systems staff to define these specs and monitor performance against them . There is, however, no need at all for any variation between councils of any kind. The cost of meeting these varying specs is huge. Consortia working has had a small effect on the workload but there is little evidence that it has reduced costs in councils.
For any one council it appears that they are doing what they have always assumed it is their job and role to do- to maintain their own catalogues and systems in their own way. They don't see the broader picture - and no one ever describes it to them. The wastage has been estimated at £200m pa -- about £50m is the cost of library suppliers production facilities, and the other £150m is the attendant repeated structures within councils to which suppliers are responding.
In particular nearly all the general Book supply to public libraries has now reduced to just three suppliers- these are the national wholesalers Bertrams and Gardners and the independent Peters (who specialise in Childrens' books). In addition there is a small amount of academic supply which comes from UK and US major wholesalers The market has become non competitive and the evidence of this is that as book discounts have risen to retailers, even in the past 12 months (because of retailer discounting to the public) - discounts to libraries, which are generally fixed by contract for 3 years have barely risen at all. In other words, yet again, the local government purchasing mechanism is producing poor value and the library sector has failed to notice and address the issue.
This problem is library specific. It will not be addressed by national initiatives of sharing council management, because it is the library profession who are allowed to specifiy what they believe is the work that needs to be done. They have no inclination to address this question- bluntly there is no incentive for them to do so. They need to be told what to do (by their employers).
We are continuing to throw huge amounts of money away and it seems ridiculous to hear pleadings fom Central quangoes about hard times and to watch libraries being closed and services reduced when this question has been sitting unaddressed for years. We need some leadership.
In this specific instance what leadership means is
- a professional appraisal of the issues and the costs
- a discussion with those responsible for both the service and its budgets (ie local councillors that hold the public libraries in their portfolio)
- a clear and evaluated proposal from those in a position to make one
- A concensus among a group of councils with agreement as to what to do, with a timetable. Someone takes responsibility answering to the public for the expenditure of their money.
- A firm hand on progress to ensure each of the appropriate parties does what they have agreed and that the results are what was foreseen
- Completion.
- Public and professional clarity throughout
Posted by Perkins at 9:57 AM | Comments (3)