« Uncivil service | Main | Perkins' view of the library service in your council »
March 5, 2010
The MLA (again)
When the current management of the MLA took over, nearly three years ago, they said they would provide new focus on the public library service, that they would research the subject and work on the basis of evidence and that they would report every six months on the progress they made.
We waited, some with optimism.
The evidence base that they needed to create was of two kinds, as was pointed out to them at the time. The first is about current and past performance and costs, not of library authorities, but of indivdual libraries. The second is about the public and how and why they use public libraries and why they don't.
If they had done these, as they promised, they would then have had some useful material with which to engage local councils- as they also promised. It would help a local council to make an improvement plan if it was able to work with this kind of evidence and make useful comparisons and analysis. They could then identify what they needed to do and their priorities. It would have been a basis for a constructive relationship, which has been long sought.
That information and help in understanding it, would also have been a help to those councillors who hold libraries in their portfolio. The MLA promised they would do that, too, especially for new councillors who come to the porfolio unprepared.
They have done none of these things. Particularly they haven't reported either to their own board or to the public as they promised they would. It is such reporting that provides the internal pressure in organisations to stick to the path agreed. Not to report at all is very poor management.
Instead we have "Daisy Dooz - Make a Noise in a Library." And a whole set of handouts of public money on consultancy projects which had nothing to do with what they had promised they would achieve. One would like to see a list of their project expenditures. It will reveal enormous sums as will the expenditure on new staff-- having made great redundancies when they took over.
That is why they have failed on their own project. The aim was ok- but the delivery has been non-existent. There was a job to do, but they didn't do it. Shut them down. We have to change.
Sadly, we have to start again- and this time we need to do what we say we will, but quickly because the public have paid several times over already.
Posted by Perkins at March 5, 2010 8:43 AM
Comments
I think it unlikely, though not impossible, that any of those organisations would be briefing councils to do or not do anything of the sort. It's not their style and, frankly, they don't have the time, the energy or the remit to engage in that kind of activity.
Now, let's dispel the Hillingdon myth. Nothing that's happened there is unique. Libraries have been built and refitted up and down the country, coffee bars installed, visitor numbers boosted. There has been justified celebration around the many excellent developments of this kind, and what we need is the funding and commitment to deliver more of them.
The difference in Hillingdon is that professional input was pushed aside, resulting in some slightly naff decisions and seriously battered staff morale, and there has been huge pressure to deliver figures that satisfy political demand. We shouldn't assume that everything we read and hear is quite as it seems. One thing that is clear though: the staff in Hillingdon are doing a remarkable job under remarkably difficult circumstances.
Posted by: Apollo at March 5, 2010 1:08 PM
No, Mr Apollo, the difference in Hillingdon was that it didn't require any extra funding and it is not about coffee bars.
It is true that the whole story was not made public, even though I have frequently offered to talk about it.
What were the 'Naff decisions'? My view, and it might be personal, was that the some of the professional staff were sometimes very negative and extremely difficult. Some of them had to be 'pushed aside' as you say, they were obstructing important work. I think we ought to resolve all that. It is important-- and most of all what matters is the view of the local residents-- which I understand to be very positive. The professionals are not, I'm afraid, the people to lead. They are not good at it.
As to the 'briefing' not being the style of things, you must have missed the episode in which I was forced to make a formal complaint to the MLA, which was upheld. It was a long saga. Or I was dreaming, perhaps.
I'm sorry to have to rebutt what you say, but I do. You still haven't the last questions about your trusts and how they would work. I do not see many trusts that are providing better libraries. You will have to say where they are. Nor do I see the need for extra funding. People pay enough already. They deserve value for money.
Posted by: perkins at March 5, 2010 1:58 PM
I am indebted to the hard pressed journalists at CILIP Update for the information they provide this month in a ridiculous article about Slough library service. They tell us that there are currently three 'trusts' running libraries: in Wigan, in Luton and in Hounslow. I honestly don't know anything about the service in Luton or Wigan (and would be pleased to hear from residents or staff)- but I do know that after 7? years of messsing about in Hounslow, the libraries are just as awful as they ever were.
In Slough, where the council operate 5 libraries (yes 5! ) they sought the advice of consultants who told them that 'just 53% of the budget is attributable to customer service'. Does the chief librarian do the job he is paid to do? No--instead he suggests that the service would be better run by a Trust and has initiated more incredibly expensive time wasting procedures to explore all the possible options! Preserve us from chief librarians who behave like this, or even condone it, Mr Apollo. A cat could run a better operation than this, never mind a Trust. Do I have to spell it out? It will hurt!
Posted by: perkins at March 6, 2010 10:30 AM
Well, Perkins, I am pleased to say that I have researched and do know a fair bit about the way the existing trusts operate. I wouldn't be recommending the model if I hadn't - although I am far more interested in trusts that span more than one authority.
What's been happening in Slough is unsurprising. Elected members don't really know what they want other than to keep their seats and plug a budget deficit. And they probably expected their head of service to roll out something like the MLA Libraries Blueprint as he drafted it when he was there. A more interesting question might be which consultants were used by Slough ....
Posted by: Apollo at March 7, 2010 3:53 PM
I believe the consultants were actually Wesminster City Council
Posted by: perkins at March 7, 2010 4:22 PM