Wil Iam Sieghart on PUBlic Libraries

Wil Iam Sieghart has given a snippet of his thinking with regards to the future of the library service in England. Its on the LGA (Local Government Association) site and you can read it here.

Short version so far

• Not considering changing local authority structures
• Digital network for libraries
• Single management system with one card valid in all libraries
• Library services delivered in pubs and local shops

Anyone in charge or involved in the profession who thinks that books in a pub, phone box or other static building without a library manager or librarian there shouldn't be involved in libraries because they clearly don't know what libraries do. Taking away a proper library and having "Pub is the Hub" and pretending its a some how better thing is cloud cuckoo land.

And I'm not sure about the single LMS systems with one for all authorities, if he really means that then great, but I doubt it, probably another national system on top with councils allowed to opt out if they wanted. Not sure how he could force the introduction of one LMS across all authorities, the suppliers of these systems would probably sue and it may not even be legal under competition law. The old phrase politics is the choice between the disastrous and the unpalatable spring to mind.

I don't know which library users he has spoken to but, obviously only speaking for myself I don't want a pub with some books on a shelf replacing my local library. One LMS replacing all the others makes sense but I doubt that's possible or what is intended. The direction of travel seems to be more of this nonsense localism where services are cut and local authorities are encouraged to make it up as they go along. But you know what? Sometimes one size does actually fit all, its called library standards and that is what is needed as well as less library authorities to get rid of the elephant in the room that is the elephant sized service support costs, localism is just smoke and mirrors for the cuts.  I'm saddened that a supposedly independent report seems to echo the views of the minister almost as if he'd dictated it himself.

To speak to Mr Sieghart you can pay £640 to attend a event put on by the taxpayer funded quango the LGA in Bournemouth here. We pay for them via council subscriptions and its basically us paying for one part of government to lobby another and it means lots of senior staff and councillors can have lots of jollies (to the seaside in this case) and training away days at our expense but producing nothing of worth. Where is the taxpayer funded national conference for library users?

With the opposition almost non existent, the library minister without a brain getting seemingly everything he could wish for from this independent report and the upper echelons of the profession refusing to speak out about this nonsense then it is even darker days for PUBlic libraries.

Post Library Campaign AGM thoughts

It all felt a bit fractious and there was some differing views about volunteer libraries. I think the triumph of the day was me working out how to switch on the air conditioning. One of the contentious views was should we help library users who in the face of closure are trying to save their library by volunteering.

Alan Templeton was of the view that we have to support them and help advise them on how to run a volunteer library otherwise we're responsible for the library failing/closing. Given the example of Brent campaigners trying to get their foot back in the door of their closed library to see if they can reverse the decision of Brent council by showing there is a need for a library, then on the surface it the point is valid and straightforward. If we're about saving libraries we should support volunteer run libraries. I've paraphrased but I think this was the gist of his point. I disagree, for a few reasons.

There are so many different configurations of volunteer library out there, nobody really knows what works and what doesn't. It seems from the example in Bucks, if you have a library in a affluent area with lots of wealth retired professionals then the volunteer library has a chance, but if you're in a deprived borough then its less likely it will succeed. How can I or the library campaign or anyone else claim to know what it best to advise the poor souls trying to save their library? Locality is getting large amounts of taxpayer money and has set up some resources to help, as is Little Chalfont in Bucks. If either of these aren't providing enough support, they users should be complaining to their local authority, DCLG and DCMS, its their ideological solution not mine. I know Jim from Little Chalfont thinks volunteer libraries isn't a great idea but he chooses to help others put in this difficult decision and while I disagree with his choice I won't criticize him for it. Its a horrible choice to have to make and we're all entitled to do what we thinks best.

The other point is, I shouldn't be made to feel guilty or feel responsible if I choose rather than to help I devote my limited free time to campaign against the actual concept of volunteer libraries which nearly all library users/campaigners (but not all in the profession!) are against. The blame lies with your local councillor, cabinet holder for libraries, the council officers and the national government for failing us and particularly Vaizey. Despite still being one of the richest countries in the world they tell us that library managers, the lowest paid, in the smaller branch and rural libraries are a luxury that cannot be afforded, but we can still afford millions (2 million in Oxfordshire in fact) on self service machines, giant vanity PFI libraries in the big cities with websites alone that cost millions.

My final point and I said something along these lines in the meeting and its a harsh reality. If volunteer libraries are seen as succeeding (even if they aren't) then this will be the de facto choice for councils looking to make more easy cuts. We've seen what a meal they've made of the Bucks example, they're quiet about the failures, Walcot in Swindon I would put forward as a example of this, I'm sure there are many others.

The apparent short term success puts at risk more libraries as they spread like a cancer across the library network. More library managers and librarians will lose their jobs and eventually we'll have a library network that is a complete postcode lottery of provision, some failing, a small number managing to stay open, some libraries losing their neutrality and being taken over by groups with agendas to promote. In the middle you will likely have a old central library desperately in need of a refurbishment or replacement or a central PFI library the council can barely afford the monthly payments on.

I wish it wasn't so, those blackmailed into saving their library by feckless councils short sighted cuts I'm not attacking. Given the option of volunteering or my local library closing I'm sure I would probably do the same thing. I hate the position they've been put in and I wish them luck but its not my responsibility, we all know who is responsible and its the councils, Vaizey and the politicians and officers and some in the profession promoting this agenda.

My biggest concern is Labour aren't going to be any different in power if they win or form the coalition next year. Despite their warm words in opposition I suspect they'll not intervene to enforce the act or get the councils to work together to save costs rather than cull the library managers. Most councils out there are Labour and once they've got power again they'll be no different to the tories. We'll have co-operatives as the savour of libraries rather than the big society.

Again, my viewpoint isn't attacking volunteers, I'm dead against volunteer libraries and will use my time to fight that failed idea rather than support it.

Power to the people

The consultation that came out yesterday from the shadow minister for libraries Helen Goodman MP isn't a public consultation. I emailed to clarify this today as the questions don't look like they're intended for the public, rather those in the councils. I got the surprise response that Helen wanted to have a chat with me on the phone, which she did. She is very nice and pleasant but the consultation isn't for library users, I told her how we're sick of sham consultations and our views being ignored and how I was disappointed. Her reasoning is what they are consulting on at this stage is too detailed for users. I don't know if this means Labour are going to consult users before they come up with their manifesto for the next election or not but I suspect not and once again the people who use and pay for libraries are ignored. How are you supposed to represent people when you haven't asked them for their views? If this wasn't meant for public consumption they just had to put that on the document, it was shared with the world but not specifying who should respond. I'm very cross obviously and will write my own submission and put it on my blog so they can safely ignore it at their leisure.

Avoiding precedents

Helen Goodman MP has been up to see the Save Lincs Libraries group and gave a speech to the fantastic campaigners up there. She said a lot of good stuff about what libraries are for and actually she has done what her predecessor Dan Jarvis refused to do and called for the minister to exercise his powers and intervene:

"Today I have written to the new secretary of state Sajid Javid asking him to use his powers, he's got a duty to look at whether your local library service fulfils the requirements of the law"

Goodman also said some good stuff about not wanting a postcode lottery and about having a full professional service.

I suspect the DCMS and minister will dodge and wait for the outcome of the judicial review and the results of the Sieghart Report but its good that finally Labour have come off the fence and there is no a policy difference between the two. How the Labour party in government plan to ensure volunteers are not use to replace staff and the library service is maintained is another question we'll have to extract from them before next years election

Speaking of the Sieghart Report, I put in a FOI request for the terms of reference and where the three questions came from. The answer was they obviously came from the DCMS and not Sieghart himself. The third question about community libraries clearing showing the unwritten and moronic policy direction of the government.

The link to the FOI is here

And here is Helen Goodman talking to the Save Lincs campaigners:

Pin heads

It sort of has been rumbling on twitter and on PLN over the last few days. But its wound me up enough to write something now. A couple of jobs ago I used to support self service kiosks in leisure centres as part of my job on a support desk. Despite the process being simple, the users hated them, the staff hated them and I hated them. But the need to drive down staff costs meant a lot of leisure centres were investing in them. Self service has also come to supermarkets in the last few years, again "illegal item in bagging area" as a phrase has entered the lexicon as to how annoying these things are.

Councils, with their giant pot of money that has to be spent every year on IT have also embraced self service. The system in Oxfordshire has a lot simplier interface to the supermarket and leisure centre systems I've seen and they have very simple transactions:

• Borrow books
• Extend books
• Pay fines on account using cash

The only information you see on screen is the books you have out and any outstanding fines on your account. You don't have to put in your pin number you just have to scan you card. If the self service kiosk allowed access to personal information like address, I could see a argument for having to use a pin number but even then, people junk mail in the bin with their address on it, my address is on the electoral register available online if you want to find it.

Somerset County Council have recently installed some self service machines (the story here) but for some bizzare reason they've decided to force users to input their pin number to get onto the machines and use them rather than just use their cards like I do. I thought to myself they must have a system that lets you see users address etc but having done a google I found their equalities impact assessment when implementing these things and according to their document this isn't the case. Its exactly as the system in Oxfordshire: "Personal data which can be viewed on a self service unit is currently limited to user name, membership number, items on loan, items which have been requested and money owed" 

The full document is available here

So why have they done it? From a data protection point of view, someone stealing a card to look at what books someone has out or to pay their fines off for them is a nonsense. They could take books out with someone else card but really, its easier to rip the tags out of the books and stick them in your bag than to pickpocket someone for their library card.

The only reason I can think of them forcing the use of a pin code is being the council is a bit thick. I've stood and watched the elderly struggle to use those stupid parking meters that insist on the car license plate and I'm sure it puts people off going to those car parks. I once put my old cars plate in and had to pay twice once, but I am a bit thick myself.

There is no evidence that this will put users off, but really its putting a extra step in the process for no reason and the people with crap memories will probably write their pin on their card or have it on a piece of paper next to the card, or even worse, change it to their bank card pin number so making their bank card less secure.

Somerset are really silly for doing this, self service is stupid enough as a concept in libraries without putting even more barriers in the way of users.

If people don't know what you're doing, they don't know what you're doing wrong.

The new Library comparison reports were put online today. They're a bit of a double edged sword, on the one hand you can see what your local authority is spending compared to others on certain areas etc but on the other I think councils are using them as a excuse for further cuts in a race to the bottom if a neighbour spends less on something than they do. Once curious thing I noticed is there seems to be less authorities than last year, I've checked three times now and in 2012 there were 149 authorities listed but in 2014 there are only 78. I'm hoping to take off my tinfoil hat as they may be still uploading them or I've missed something. The drivel laden press release from E-Vaizey is here and the link to the 2012 reports are here and the 2013 here

I do remember once a councillor telling me that authorities hate above all things being compared with others, considering the DCMS was footing the bill for this, it would be a very, very bad thing indeed if all those authorities have opted out but as I say, it may be they're still uploading them, I've missed them on the site somehow because I'm thick or there is some other technical reason. I have emailed CIPFA asking where my local authorities report is and I'll update this when they reply or I see it has appeared on the site. 

Here is the list of 2012/2013 authorities.

Neverending Story

Oxfordshire County Council are doing another cull of staff. We've already had the following cull either already cut or in the process of cutting:

• Volunteer library "savings":       £313,000
• Management Restructure:         £273,000
• Self service Staffing savings:     £256,000
• Mobile library savings:             £84,000

And now it turns out that because of the death spiral of funding for local councils there is to be yet another cull of staff at OCC which will supposedly save another £250,000. I do feel sorry for the staff at OCC at the cack handed and botched way this has been handled. The cuts have rumbled on for years now and they must be sick of it. The dumb librarian blog, which claims to be a OCC staff member of some sort seems to back this up.

According to the councillor responsible for libraries, Lorraine Lindsay-Gale:

"These proposals, if agreed by full council later this month, will further develop the savings already identified as part of the Cabinet’s commitment of December 2011 to deliver a cost effective, high quality library service that is fit for the 21^st century through:

• Rationalising management support
• Assessing current procurement arrangements
• Benefitting from best practice and opportunities to review and develop services"

I don't think we're going to end up with a quality library service that is fit for the 21st century, I think OCC will keep cutting and the service get worse and they'll use that as a excuse to keep cutting further.

On the stupid non-money saving scheme to get volunteers to replace the low paid library managers and assistants, despite it being passed in 2011, there are currently no libraries fully implemented (page 377!). There are 21 to be culled of half their staffing and there's only eleven even in the negotiation stage. They all have to be up and running by April next year. There are clearly going to be libraries failing and closing despite the hollow promises of the council when David Cameron and Keith Mitchell bounced this undemocratically through in 2011.

I suspect the further culling of the staff is because they have realised the stupid scheme to use volunteers isn't going to save they money they pretended it would and now the library service has to take yet another cut. If Cameron had kept out of it and the council was competent they would have implemented the back office sharing with BucksCC and it could have been phased in over these past few years and they wouldn't have to keep going back to libraries for further cuts. Sadly this didn't happen and we're going to bounce along in a staff moral sapping/sacking, library destroying death spiral for the next decade until only the central library in the newly developed Westgate Centre is the only thing left standing.

It just needs some vision and to step away from the ideological dogma. Sadly nationally Cameron still thinks the Big Society is great and the moron Vaizey in yet another breathtaking fit of hypocrisy has commissioned yet another pointless report to kick the can further down the road and waste time and money but keep the willfully blind of the plight of libraries busy in the Westminster bubble.