In looking at this matter and considering it carefully, it seems that it may be
time to think outside of the box a bit more. It will be increasingly difficult
to overcome the cost of transportation to the training sessions at may of the
smaller libraries. When I suggested a modest fee of $5 to $8 for a session, I
was told some places could not afford that--I still do not agree that valuable
information at a sliding scale charge cannot be delivered. But now to drive
30-80 miles at the cost of gas now will make the sessions prohibitively
expensive to the very group who needs them the most.
*
I believe that many of the topics could be addressed in a distance
learning manner and the technology is available to accomplish this. This might
also lend itself to grant opportunities as several companies in this area do
support this type of thing, AT&T, IBM, and a few more. Maybe even develope a
A/V library of these classes that could be "rented" or borrowed or downloaded
by interested participants.
*
Perhaps as Dale suggests libraries could partner with one another or
possibly "adopt a sister library." Easy to share the information when there is
an established relationship.
*
CTLS might develop FAQ documents based on the questions that come in
to the office--if one person asks, there are probably 10 more who won't ask but
would benefit from the information or will need the same information later. It
is hard to look for the right thread in the CTLS-L archive to find the
information that is shared.
*
I know our library is able to send every employee to "school" using the
TSL link to the Idaho State basic library education on-line. This does cost us
$$ for training time every quarter and has been very worth while. We also have
used the LEAD program although not as successfully. Microsoft has FREE training
at its site on-line on every program for those who chose to use it.
*
Sharing of valuable links is something that CTLS does now in the CTLS-L
but they don't seem to be archived anywhere else--again hard to find when you
want them later. Maybe more documents with this kind of information available
for download--I know this is not a training session but dissemination of
essential information impacts the use of the information.
Dianne Koehler Wells Branch Community Library tel: 989-3188 cell: 507-0116
I GoodSearch for Wells Branch Community Library FOL
Raise money for our charity just by searching the Internet or shopping online
with GoodSearch
www.goodsearch.com - powered by Yahoo!
________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Pat Tuohy
Sent: Thu 5/22/2008 2:46 PM
To: CTLS-L
Subject: [ctls-l] Member suggests ways to fund CE without state funding
Below is a letter received from another CTLS member questioning the need for
state general revenue to fund the ten regional systems and suggesting
alternative ways to fund continuing education programs. As part of the
on-going dialog about this issue I have attached a letter from Dale Ricklefs,
Director of the Round Rock Public Library. Peggy Gibson's response follows
Dale's letter. This letter and the attachments can be viewed on the CTLS web
site in pdf format in case you have difficulty opening the files.
Hi Peggy:
Thank you for the time taken to share the CTLS board view on the inability of
CTLS to train librarians using IMLS related funding. My question is, how much
money ended up going to libraries, as direct grants, to use as the libraries
deem fit, in our system? How much would a CTLS class cost, with the libraries
using such grants (money they didn't have direct control of a year ago), to
supply training back to those who need it? Is it time for the system to really
ACT like a system. By that I mean not a main hub with dependencies, but rather
independent and fully functioning libraries sharing expertise? Is it time for
the larger libraries to help with training? I noted that some of that is
happening. It needs to happen more.
Again, thanks for taking the time, but I need more factual info on how people
are using their Lone Star Library Grants this year, with the new money
provided, specifically:
A. How much (delta) between last year and this year the libraries in the
system received
B. MINUS the book allowances (and any other services of value that
translate to things (e.g., magazine subscriptions), not consulting) received in
FY 06-07
C. If there is an excess, if the libraries actually used the excess for
training and self-improvement, which they can do, and if not, why not.
D. If there IS NOT an excess for training for the smaller libraries and if
there is really a net loss, then THAT is what would motivate me to support your
proposal.
E. Is the CTLS willing to offer training AT A COST, which they can do,
and that CAN be paid by the Lone Star Library Grant. If no one wants to "buy"
the training, doesn't that speak volumes? It does to me. This was discussed at
the last system meeting, as I recall, but it always becomes the same proposal.
Thanks.
Dale Ricklefs, Library Director
Round Rock Public Library
Dear Dale,
I have taken your questions and placed our answers below them. I have included
three spreadsheets for the comparisons that I feel are pretty telling as to the
state of our membership. I hope this helps you decide in favor of supporting
our position. Please let me know if I can provide anything further.
1. How much money ended up going to libraries, as direct grants, to use as the
libraries deem fit, in our system? How much change between last year and
this year the libraries in the system received, MINUS the book allowances (and
any other services of value that translate to things (e.g., magazine
subscriptions), not consulting) received in FY 06-07. (SFY 2007 is being used
for this comparison and the value of periodicals purchased for members has not
been included in the FY 2007 total)
Attached is a spreadsheet that should answer these questions. The file shows
the SFY 2007 & SFY 2008 Loan Star Libraries (LSL) grants as well as the FY 2007
System grants. The two FY 2007 grant sources have been totaled and compared
with the FY 2008 LSL grant. As you can see, all but 3 CTLS members got more
money in FY 2008 than the combined grants in FY 2007. This is the result of an
additional $1 million going into the Loan Star Libraries pot. There was (and
will be) a net gain for the LSL program in FY 2008 & 2009.
2. How much would a CTLS class cost, with the libraries using such grants
(money they didn't have direct control of a year ago), to supply training back
to those who need it?
We currently do not charge members for workshops but that is likely to change
in FY 2009. The actual cost of a "typical" CTLS workshop has not been
calculated but it can be. The Board has been discussing this issue and will
obviously continue to do so. It is a tough call, but we feel it will be a
necessary move.
3. If there is an excess, if the libraries actually used the excess for
training and self-improvement, which they can do, and if not, why not.
Libraries have more money in direct state aid than they did in FY 2007. They
can choose to use it to pay for training if they wish. Most are using it for
operational support like salaries. Small libraries in particular find they
have to use the funding for direct answers to immediate problems. Not all
small cities have funding enough in their budgets to fund anything extra for
the library. It is not a question of whether they or the community want to
support the library; it is a question of money.
Attached is another spreadsheet with two tables that show a number of things.
One tab shows the per capita expenditures for our member libraries in FY 2006
from lowest to highest and the other one rank the budgets of our member
libraries from lowest to highest. You will note that we have a large number of
very poorly funded libraries in CTLS. Many members use the Loan Star Libraries
grant to cover the basic operating costs of the library. Better funded
libraries are using the money to provide expanded services and increase
collections. These libraries are in the best position to pay for continuing
education.
Very few libraries in CTLS can be characterized as having strong local support.
Of the 78 members in FY 2006, 52 libraries or 67% ranked in the lowest
quartile of expenditures per capita in the national survey published by the
Public Library Data Service. CTLS members are compared with peer libraries in
population groupings so it is an apples-to-apples comparison. I have attached
that spreadsheet so you can see where each member ranks as well as the dollar
thresholds for each PLDS quartile level.
4. Is it time for the system to really ACT like a system. By that I mean not
a main hub with dependencies, but rather independent and fully functioning
libraries sharing expertise? Is it time for the larger libraries to help with
training? I noted that some of that is happening. It needs to happen more.
As you have noted, CTLS has used several staff members from the larger
libraries with MLS degreed librarians as trainers. This is a wonderful
resource that we have been using whenever possible. In most cases we pay these
librarians because they take vacation time off from work to conduct the
training. It is rare for a library to allow a staff member to conduct training
of non-city staff on library time in a location outside of that city. In fact,
I can recall only a couple of instances when that occurred. Local city polices
usually disallow any activity of that nature. I am not sure how we would go
about working around those policies.
5. Is the CTLS willing to offer training AT A COST, which they can do, and that
CAN be paid by the Lone Star Library Grant. If no one wants to "buy" the
training, doesn't that speak volumes? It does to me. This was discussed at the
last system meeting, as I recall, but it always becomes the same proposal.
The relative poverty of many of our member libraries is why we do not try to
recover costs for the training we provide. As you can see by the spreadsheets
enclosed, 42% of our members had total library expenditures under $100,000 in
FY 2006. This may not be an acceptable answer to a library with a strong local
tax base and a history of good support, but the extreme scarcity of money is a
reality for many of our member libraries.
Only a third of our members have MLS degreed librarians on staff. Most of the
smaller CTLS member libraries employ staff with no formal training in
librarianship. This reality combined with an annual turnover rate of 7-10% at
the director level requires a constant level of training in the fundamentals of
librarianship and library operations. The kind of expertise offered by
seasoned MLS degreed librarians in larger systems does not match the needs of
this steady stream of new librarians coming into CTLS libraries.
The only source of appropriate, accessible, and free (or almost free) training
for these libraries is the system. The Board and the Long Range Planning
Committee are constantly assessing the strengths and weaknesses of all the
member libraries and have consistently concluded that free or almost free
training is a basic service of the system. I believe most members would like
to be able to pay for training, but many don't see that they have a choice as
to where their funds should go.
6. I need more factual info on how people are using their Lone Star Library
Grants this year, with the new money provided.
We cannot provide you with this information since there is no requirement that
libraries report to the systems on how they spent Loan Star Libraries money.
Wendy Clark at TSL may be able to tell you specifically how CTLS members are
spending their LSL grants, but we have only anecdotal information about this.
I can tell you that several libraries have told me they are using it for
staffing and some additional equipment needs.
7. If there IS NOT an excess for training for the smaller libraries and if
there is really a net loss, then THAT is what would motivate me to support your
proposal.
At this time, there really is not any excess for training and the Board feels
that it would be a huge blow to the smaller libraries to burden them any
further than they are already burdened and take away services from the System
that they consider valuable. We are recognizing there will be a need for some
type of fees; we just haven't arrived at what they might be as yet.
Please let me know if this has been useful to you. I have gone over all the
numbers and information provided me and to the best of my knowledge, this is
where we stand. I can tell you I wish we were standing behind a better door.
I appreciate your interest and the time you took to respond.
As always, you provide some fodder for thought and it is truly welcomed.
Sincerely, Peggy
