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.
The spreadsheets that were sent to Dale are too large to include with this posting. You can find the 3 spreadsheets on the CTLS web site in pdf format. 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
