OWLSweb :: Links for Libraries :: Some Thoughts About Public Library Systems

Some Thoughts About Wisconsin Public Library Systems

Posted: February 18, 2000
Document author: Rick Krumwiede

In preparation for the SRLAAW retreat, I've taken some time to reflect on my experience working with public library systems. What follows is not a "view of the future of libraries, library service, and systems," nor a new model for systems, but rather thoughts about systems as they exist now in our state. Given that there hasn't been a consensus about the role and function of systems during their nearly thirty years of existence, it seems to me that looking back might be helpful for looking ahead.

It's not necessary, and perhaps not even desirable, to create a vision of what services systems will provide in the future.
If past experience is any indication, it will be difficult to predict the future. Ten years ago I never could have predicted all of the things that library systems are doing today. It seems that at OWLS, we are frequently involved in projects during the second half of the year that weren't even an idea when we were writing our annual plan. Toffler was right; the rate of change continues to accelerate. Trying to predict the changes is an ineffective use of our time, and an incorrect prediction can result in a waste of precious resources. However, to be prepared for the future and the changes that it will bring we need to do two things. First, we need to know why systems exist. That is, we need to understand their role in the grand scheme of public library service, not the activities in which they'll engage. If systems continue to exist, they need to have a philosophical foundation from which guiding principles can be derived. In order to function effectively, systems need guiding philosophical principles that can inform their planning and decision making.

Second, we need to make sure that the organizational structure of systems is flexible, adaptable, and responsive. While we may not be able to predict the future, systems must have the ability to quickly change directions, implement new services, and seize opportunities in order to continue to be of value to their member libraries.
The Wisconsin Public Library System program is an equalization program.

I'm surprised that after so many years there are still those in the library community questioning whether the library system program is an equalization program. There isn't any reason for the state to be involved in library service except to equalize opportunity for all state residents.

When systems were created, it was the intent of the Legislature that state aid funds be used by systems "to coordinate and supplement library resources and services beyond what could be provided at the local and county levels (Legislative Audit Bureau 1988)." Clearly, the public library system program was designed to equalize the opportunity for all state residents to enjoy a reasonable level of public library service. Equalization of opportunity is the primary reason, if not the only reason, the state is involved in all kinds of activities or programs, e.g., state assistance to public schools.

The general rule for equalization programs is that state funds are collected via a statewide tax and distributed to localities on some basis (not related to the way funds are collected). Public library system aids follow this rule. They come from state funds generated by the income tax, and they are distributed using a formula that considers population, area, and local expenditures. As with other state equalization programs, public library system aids are not intended or expected to be returned to the localities responsible for generating them.

If state aids were always returned to localities in the amounts generated by those localities, there would be no reason for the state to be involved. There is no reason for the state to collect money and return it to where it came from. This could be done more efficiently at the local level.
Local library development is the most important task of systems.

Public library service in Wisconsin is the result of a partnership between local libraries, municipalities, counties, systems, and the state. Let's face it, municipal libraries are the biggest players. Local libraries provide most of the service, and their municipalities provide most of the funding. If the basic model for public library service changes, this could all change - though it's not likely.

Consequently, the best way to continue to improve public library service in Wisconsin is to continue to improve local public libraries. Systems can have the greatest impact on overall public library service by helping local libraries improve their services.

It seems obvious to most systems that providing member libraries with needed services can increase and/or improve the services that they can offer to patrons. However, systems have not been equally aggressive about helping local libraries secure adequate budgets from the jurisdictions that fund them. I believe that systems have an obligation to assist local libraries in securing funding at a level sufficient to provide adequate services as defined by state standards. All the system services in the world can't make up for a lack of local support.

I'd like to see some research on this one, but I think cash grants to member libraries have been a significant disincentive to increasing levels of local library support.
The anomalous structure of systems makes systems difficult to understand and complex to manage.

Systems, particularly multi-county systems, are strange beasts. You can look, but you won't find other organizations in Wisconsin that are "joint agencies" of multiple counties, are funded by and accountable to the state, must deal with multiple constituents, and provide services to totally autonomous units. It's no wonder that we're not understood. This structure has its charm, but it also results in strange twists of logic like the potential for systems to be penalized for the misdeeds of their members.

The basic conceptual model for systems (i.e., a federation or federal model) is not a bad one. Federalism implies independent units coming together to create a common identity in order to do some things better. In a pure federation, the outlying units give the center its powers. The center does not have authority to control, but rather it coordinates, advises, influences, and suggests. This model fits together very well with local libraries that are autonomous, optional municipal services. It also seems appropriate for systems that are created by counties.

Obviously, federated public library systems in Wisconsin are not "pure" federated organizations. Systems receive state funding, are subject to state requirements, and seem to act as an "arm of the state" in attempting to equalize the opportunity for all state residents to enjoy a reasonable level of public library service. It is through systems that the state has chosen to implement its policy "to provide laws for the development and improvement of public libraries…"

Systems exist in two different structural environments, which is wrought with tension. There is a fundamental tension between a system's role as the center of a federation and its role as an arm of the state. There is a tension between mandated requirements and local needs. There is a tension between a statewide equalization program and local control. A system's interests may never be exactly the same as those of its members or those of DLTCL.

I don't think this structural tension is insurmountable; it may even be productive. However, it is important to understand and be conscious of the nature of the environment where we operate. Systems can get into trouble when they aren't sensitive to the tensions that exist between their roles and their constituents.
Systems have too many obligations and lack focus.

It's not uncommon to hear people from larger libraries say that systems exist to help small libraries. It's also not uncommon to hear people from small libraries say that systems provide services that are not relevant to their needs in small communities. Does this mean that systems aren't of value to any libraries?

I don't think so. Systems can provide valuable services to libraries of all sizes. However, I believe that these comments stem from the fact that systems lack focus. Systems are required to provide a laundry list of services to their members, whether or not their members want them or perceive them to be of any value and whether or not they have the resources available to do a good job in all areas.

The many obligations of systems causes a dilution of resources that can result in an unfocused and mediocre service program. In an environment of limited resources, it is also difficult for systems to be responsive to needs expressed by members when they have to worry about addressing state mandated service requirements. We need to develop a model that will enable systems to pursue excellence, even if only in narrowly focused areas.
Nonresident borrowing issues will only be resolved by action at the state level.

Public libraries join systems to receive the benefit of state-funded programs and services. In addition, libraries agree to accept certain responsibilities and obligations of membership. In an ideal world, the benefits of system membership would far outweigh the obligations. There are two reasons why we've never reached this utopia. First, one of the obligations of system membership is the extension of services beyond jurisdictional boundaries (i.e., serving nonresidents), and this is a significant and often costly obligation. Second, throughout their history systems have received insufficient funding to offer a package of benefits with a value far in excess of the value of member obligations.

For a system to stay in business its members must determine that there is a net value in membership. The bottom line for each library should be that the value of system membership as measured by cash grants, nonresident reimbursements, the value of system services, and the value of access by local residents to other libraries exceeds the value of serving nonresidents and sharing resources. Given the amount of nonresident service that some libraries must provide, systems simply don't have enough resources to offer benefits of sufficient value.

As much as I'd like to see systems receiving enough funding to be able to resolve all nonresident borrowing issues (remember AB20 and the 20% index level), I don't believe it's a model to pursue because I don't think it would work over the long haul. An unrealistic increase in funding would be required for systems to have the necessary resources to address all nonresident borrowing issues. Because the impact of nonresident borrowing varies among systems, some systems would see most of their funds going to resolve nonresident borrowing issues, and other systems would be able to use the significant funding increase to provide services.

Perhaps the best reason for a state-level solution is consistency. Over the years, systems have addressed nonresident borrowing issues in dozens of different ways. While many local situations have been resolved, the proliferation of solutions based on differing assumptions and philosophies has resulted in confusion on the part of patrons, libraries, and the legislature. We may win some battles, but will never win the war without a statewide approach.
The role of system resource libraries has changed significantly over the years.

I've never been happy with our attempts to answer the question "What is the definition of a system resource library?" We've usually centered our definition around which libraries qualify to be resource libraries, but state library law has never clearly defined the exact role of a system resource library nor its relationship with its system.

My working definition is that "resource libraries are libraries that develop their resources, e.g., collections, services, facilities, or staff, to serve the needs of the entire system area." Implicit in this definition is the notion that a system must provide consideration to its resource library because it serves the entire system area and not just its own municipality.

A few years ago, I was among those saying that the concept of a resource library no longer makes sense in an automated environment. After all, all libraries in an automation consortium provide resources to each other, and the "resource library" may no longer be a net lender. A shared catalog, an efficient delivery system, and the availability of electronic reference resources have probably diminished the resource library's role as a walk-in service provider.

Well, I've changed my mind. It is true that the traditional resource library role in resource sharing isn't like it used to be. However, there is still a significant role for resource libraries, and that role is leadership. What distinguishes a resource library from other system members is the leadership it provides. A resource library can draw on its collections, staff expertise, and other resources to develop new or innovative programs, services, or content that are of value to the entire system area. In addition, a resource library leads by example. It strives to develop its services in a way that other libraries want to emulate, and it engages in effective cooperation with its system to demonstrate that the whole is truly greater than the sum of its parts.
Good faith and trust are the keys to successful systems.
Sure, systems need to be legally constituted, have sufficient funds, employ a competent staff, and even be lucky at times in order to be successful. But systems are about people and organizations working to do things more effectively together than it might be possible to do alone. It's pretty clear to me that trust goes a long way in working in this "human environment" to solve problems or facilitate development. It's equally clear to me that the biggest impediment to progress faced by systems and libraries is often a lack of good faith. Working together we can accomplish great things, but the bottom line is that "you gotta want to."

owlsweb

New or Improved

Info to Go

Back to

Some Thoughts About Wisconsin Public Library Systems