I finally got round to putting in a FOI request to Oxfordshire County Council to get the CIPFA returns and the book issues for the period since 21 of the libraries were designated non-statutory. I've not contacted any of the friends groups but I know from people who are actually friends and from some media reports that in some cases, rather than lose the staffing hours the council were cutting, some parish councils stepped in with cash, like in Bampton where they film a TV show about posh people in the old days that I believe is very popular. But I don't have any detail on what each of the friends groups are doing to try and mitigate the loss of funding. On the whole, just looking at the static libraries (excluding the central library which has been shut for a while and only recently reopened), the picture is pretty grim. Book issues down 25% in the period between 2011/12 and 2016/17 for the statutory libraries. But for the non-statutory it's even worse, they have decreased by 34%. When the publishing industry is having record years for sales of physical books and the sales of e-books flattening out, you'd think libraries would be having a second wind, but in Oxfordshire, clearly not. Is it poor marketing, poor book choice, poor buildings? I honestly don't know, but something isn't right. I do also have the CIPFA returns for the period and will look into that data further and see if there are any conclusions we can draw from them.
The FOI data is here and here
Wednesday, 21 March 2018
Monday, 15 January 2018
LibrariesTaskforceData
I don't know, I was expecting more/better for some reason. The data is lacking any unique identifiers and the quality of the data doesn't seems patchy. I presume some library authorities didn't return all the fields. I hope they do continue though, the only way to get the true picture of what's happening is to track over time the numbers on the volunteer libraries, staffed hours etc and in a ideal world, book issues for the libraries. But since the taskforce can't compel them to collect or collate this data and the political masters won't want us to see the decline anyway, I expect it won't happen.
Thursday, 7 September 2017
Proper Gander
The libraries task force has been almost on a daily basis producing reports and "toolkits" on their blog. There's so many toolkits it's in danger of turning into a giant swiss army knife. I've no idea how useful any of these toolkits are, there's lots of research but it all seems to be to be lacking in any academic rigour. There seems to be no real hard data or proper trials of approaches. The various library authorities all seem to be making it up as they go along and the taskforce is trying to pull all of these approaches together. But where is the hard data on what's working and what isn't? I know the obsession at the minute is with all things shiny shiny, but I expect if you asked most users what they want from a library, it would still be the humble old paper book as the main thing. Which brings me to my main frustration with what the task force isn't doing. The latest report on "Exploring the service effectiveness and sustainability of community managed libraries in England" I was hoping would have some stuff in it showing what happens to book issues when libraries become "Community libraries" (whatever that means). There is plenty of good stuff in there (its here), don't get me wrong. But frustratingly, book issues wasn't really part of the study. I stuck a email into the author of the report Lee Richard, who seems a very nice chap and he very kindly gave me permission to put up his reply to my question:
"Many thanks for getting in touch, and I’m glad you found the report interesting. In response to your query, the reason why we did not look into the metric of book loans in more detail was due to the limitations of the information that community libraries were able to provide to us and the variability in the systems that are being used across different community library/statutory library services from across the nine regions of England. For example, some community libraries were using the LMS system, whilst others were not. Therefore, there was insufficient data to provide any meaningful comparison of this metric between different community managed library models. In addition the focus of the research was engaging with the community libraries themselves, so researching this metric in detail with the local authority library service (where applicable and where more data may have been held) fell outside of the scope of the research we were commissioned to provide.
The final quick point I wanted to touch on with the task force is how it's still not got any representation on it from library users. There's plenty of people on there from various organisations, but the humble user who pays for all this stuff doesn't get a seat at the table or even to watch proceedings. I have asked a few times but we're not allowed. They should have someone on there from a libraries group where things aren't great or the library campaign to inject a little bit of real talk into their deliberations because everything isn't awesome, and to pretend otherwise does all of us a disservice.
"Many thanks for getting in touch, and I’m glad you found the report interesting. In response to your query, the reason why we did not look into the metric of book loans in more detail was due to the limitations of the information that community libraries were able to provide to us and the variability in the systems that are being used across different community library/statutory library services from across the nine regions of England. For example, some community libraries were using the LMS system, whilst others were not. Therefore, there was insufficient data to provide any meaningful comparison of this metric between different community managed library models. In addition the focus of the research was engaging with the community libraries themselves, so researching this metric in detail with the local authority library service (where applicable and where more data may have been held) fell outside of the scope of the research we were commissioned to provide.
However, we did complete some research with library users (from the 9 case studies within the report), as per the 87% figure you quoted, to provide some context as to the reasons why people visit community libraries and to illustrate the breadth of the services people are now accessing outside of what may be considered ‘traditional’ library services, i.e. to illustrate how community managed libraries are developing their services. Clearly, from the user survey, book loans are still a key part of the service community libraries provide but we wanted to explore how community managed libraries are diversifying into different community based services to ensure their sustainability for the future, and given the general decline in the availability of public funding. Therefore there was more focus in the research to look at how effective they are in achieving this and what support they may need to continue to develop.
I hope this answers your query."
Which I can understand the reasoning why comparing the book issues didn't happen. I know not all community libraries have access to the LMS or self service. What I find the most frustrating though, is that there is lots of library authorities that do or the community libraries have a self service machine for issuing the books. This data exists within the library sector, there are senior librarians that know what happens to book issues when libraries are handed over but unless it's good news, it's not the sort of thing that ends up in a press release and into the excellent public library news. Considering the subject matter of what libraries are, the ethics and ethos of what librarianship is (I'm not a expert here by the way) why isn't there some honestly from the sector on what is happening? This data belongs to all of us to see what is happening. I can think of no more important metric of the success of a library that book issues. Visits is wooly, collected using different methods, at different times, there's all sorts of variables that could mean you're never comparing like with like. But book issues should be a consistent and easy thing to measure and compare. A few years ago I went to meet the volunteers running Walcot library in Swindon. I Foi'ed their data and the issues after it was handed over to volunteers fell off a cliff. You can read the full thing here.
This is what happened to the book issues:
The other Swindon libraries didn't have this level of decrease in issues. Are all the other libraries in the England handed over to volunteers having a similar decrease in issues? Somebody knows, but they're not saying. The civil servants and the DCMS need to temper their EVERYTHING IS AWESOME approach to libraries and try and utilize the data they and the library authorities have on the sector so we can see what is really going on with community libraries, then when other councils consider their approach to cuts, they will have a better idea beforehand what sort of impart going down certain routes will have on book issues. I suspect they already know, but the political direction of travel is clearly to keep going down this route, the taskforce should try and be less political and pull this data together and actually publish it so we can how successful these community libraries really are. I'll probably end up doing a FOI to find out myself, but really though.
The final quick point I wanted to touch on with the task force is how it's still not got any representation on it from library users. There's plenty of people on there from various organisations, but the humble user who pays for all this stuff doesn't get a seat at the table or even to watch proceedings. I have asked a few times but we're not allowed. They should have someone on there from a libraries group where things aren't great or the library campaign to inject a little bit of real talk into their deliberations because everything isn't awesome, and to pretend otherwise does all of us a disservice.
Monday, 23 January 2017
Two kinds of chairs to go with two kinds of minister
I can't get my head round some of the stuff the new minister is saying. While any change from Lazy Vaizey was welcome, some of the stuff the new guy Rob Wilson is coming out with I find disturbing. His twitter account is a constant stream of tweets and retweets for charities and volunteer groups, which considering his role (minister for civil society) is to be expected. It's clear the new world for libraries is mutuals, volunteers, trusts etc. Anything but councils running libraries. The problem with this is when you want to run something efficiently, you know, that bit of comprehensive and efficient. Then you have to have strong process, do things in a standard way so you can report and measure things correctly and a staff culture fully signed on to get the things right. The minister, DCMS and senior leadership of the sector seem to obsessed with innovating and reinventing the wheel and fixated with whatever this weeks technical fad is or new exciting, but unproven method of delivery is. There's so much jargon (STOP SAYING COMMUNITY HUBS). There's a line in The Thick of It that always springs to mind: "Unthink the unthinkable. You can't even cope with thinking the thinkable." I can't find a GIF with this quote but here's Malcolm anyway:
I supposed this may be partly my frustration over the library service getting ripped apart and the focus is on the wrong things. There's too many library authorities duplicating back office functions in councils at great expense but the focus is on everything but that. Cutting funding and letting everyone making it up as they go along isn't innovation and it isn't localism, its just stupid. Which leads me back to the minister. In some areas he talks a good game but its not backed up by fact. For example, to the latest of what seems endless conferences he gave a speech via video link with this section:
"If so, then changes - such as co-location with other services or sometimes closures may be actually justified, and indeed required, in favour of providing library services in other ways; maybe through outreach into communities or online. But, and I want to make this absolutely clear, councils should make decisions like this based on robust evidence - rather than reducing provision in ad-hoc or very reactive ways."
Which sounds great, but when you compare this with something from government written on behalf of his department about library provision and mutuals:
"Hard, up-to-date empirical data comparing success rates is pretty scant"
So councils have to come up with robust evidence for making changes to their services, but the government despite there being no data to support the model, can push mutuals as their favoured delivery model? Grrr
I'm also finding the relentless positivity annoying from the libraries task force. How can fix the problems without being honest about how things are. All the posts (apart from Leon's) are super positive and everything is awesome. How about we try and learn from failure as well as success? Also where's the new dataset that was due last year? Maybe Rob Wilson will actually intervene and finally start holding councils to account who cut library services unnecessarily, I doubt he will, but I'd be more than happy to be proved wrong.
I supposed this may be partly my frustration over the library service getting ripped apart and the focus is on the wrong things. There's too many library authorities duplicating back office functions in councils at great expense but the focus is on everything but that. Cutting funding and letting everyone making it up as they go along isn't innovation and it isn't localism, its just stupid. Which leads me back to the minister. In some areas he talks a good game but its not backed up by fact. For example, to the latest of what seems endless conferences he gave a speech via video link with this section:
"If so, then changes - such as co-location with other services or sometimes closures may be actually justified, and indeed required, in favour of providing library services in other ways; maybe through outreach into communities or online. But, and I want to make this absolutely clear, councils should make decisions like this based on robust evidence - rather than reducing provision in ad-hoc or very reactive ways."
Which sounds great, but when you compare this with something from government written on behalf of his department about library provision and mutuals:
"Hard, up-to-date empirical data comparing success rates is pretty scant"
So councils have to come up with robust evidence for making changes to their services, but the government despite there being no data to support the model, can push mutuals as their favoured delivery model? Grrr
I'm also finding the relentless positivity annoying from the libraries task force. How can fix the problems without being honest about how things are. All the posts (apart from Leon's) are super positive and everything is awesome. How about we try and learn from failure as well as success? Also where's the new dataset that was due last year? Maybe Rob Wilson will actually intervene and finally start holding councils to account who cut library services unnecessarily, I doubt he will, but I'd be more than happy to be proved wrong.
Wednesday, 10 August 2016
UK library data in PowerBI
Having had to put up with those god awful cipfa returns in FOI requests, sometimes as PDF's scanned in from horrible, blurry black and white print outs. I'm looking forward to whatever this data is that the libraries task force is going to put into the public domain. I'm a big believer that all data paid for by the public purse, should be available to the public as a matter of course, rather than having to put in FOI requests. And ideally the data should be as current as possible. Hopefully the data will have issues, visits, costs etc and also the number of libraries and if the library is statutory or not and some sort of time element on the datasets to trends can be shown. Having not being involved in this I've no idea what this data will contain.
Where I work, we've recently gone over to Office 365, and as part of this we got a new bit of BI (business intelligence) software from Microsoft called PowerBI. I don't work for Microsoft or have any friends or links to the company. I much prefer doing most of the BI work at the database level as the thing I'm most experience in is writing T-SQL statements for stored procedures and functions etc. If you know how to write t-sql well, you can throw data about much easier and in much more complex ways than you can in excel/access etc. The front end to all this of course has to be some sort of BI software to expose this data to the users. Down the years I've used: Excel, Access, Crystal Reports, Cognos, Business Objects and SQL Server Reporting Services. PowerBI as a tool, both for ease of use and the things you can do is so much stronger in my view than all the other stuff. You can configure more with some of the others, there's not a lot of tweaking you can do but the software is only a year old and they're adding new features every month.
Below is something I've thrown together from some very old libraries data that contains nothing in the way of measures other than the number of libraries per authority:
Nearly all of the visualisation in PowerBI can act as filters (or not) on the other visualizations within the report. This means on one page, you can click on a category on a bar chart and the data everywhere else on the page can be filtered. There's also slicers (the library authority names at the top of page four) which act as filter buttons, you can select one or many (ctrl + left click) and these will filter the data down as well. The example above isn't that great, because the data isn't great. There's a lot more you can do with this software, there's a library of user created custom visuals: https://app.powerbi.com/visuals/ and other examples online showing the sort of stuff you can do. It can take data from flat files, excel and most types of other database/datasource. There is a free version and a paid for version, if you use office 365 at work, you probably have access to the free version already. I've offered already to the task force to do some stuff with their data already, I'll probably want to do something with it myself even if they decide to use something else. Its important that we use this data to hold those to account who are failing to provide us with a proper library service.
Where I work, we've recently gone over to Office 365, and as part of this we got a new bit of BI (business intelligence) software from Microsoft called PowerBI. I don't work for Microsoft or have any friends or links to the company. I much prefer doing most of the BI work at the database level as the thing I'm most experience in is writing T-SQL statements for stored procedures and functions etc. If you know how to write t-sql well, you can throw data about much easier and in much more complex ways than you can in excel/access etc. The front end to all this of course has to be some sort of BI software to expose this data to the users. Down the years I've used: Excel, Access, Crystal Reports, Cognos, Business Objects and SQL Server Reporting Services. PowerBI as a tool, both for ease of use and the things you can do is so much stronger in my view than all the other stuff. You can configure more with some of the others, there's not a lot of tweaking you can do but the software is only a year old and they're adding new features every month.
Below is something I've thrown together from some very old libraries data that contains nothing in the way of measures other than the number of libraries per authority:
Nearly all of the visualisation in PowerBI can act as filters (or not) on the other visualizations within the report. This means on one page, you can click on a category on a bar chart and the data everywhere else on the page can be filtered. There's also slicers (the library authority names at the top of page four) which act as filter buttons, you can select one or many (ctrl + left click) and these will filter the data down as well. The example above isn't that great, because the data isn't great. There's a lot more you can do with this software, there's a library of user created custom visuals: https://app.powerbi.com/visuals/ and other examples online showing the sort of stuff you can do. It can take data from flat files, excel and most types of other database/datasource. There is a free version and a paid for version, if you use office 365 at work, you probably have access to the free version already. I've offered already to the task force to do some stuff with their data already, I'll probably want to do something with it myself even if they decide to use something else. Its important that we use this data to hold those to account who are failing to provide us with a proper library service.
Wednesday, 20 July 2016
A load of old cobblers, Minister.
"If Andy Burnham is not prepared to intervene when library provision is slashed in a local authority such as the Wirral, it is clear that he is ignoring his responsibilities as Secretary of State, which in the process renders any sense of libraries being a statutory requirement for local authorities meaningless." - Ed Vaizey 2009
Vaizey was the best shadow minister for libraries, but the worst minister for libraries. The massive hypocrisy of his words after what he said in opposition, sat on his backside doing nothing in office while the library service was dismembered will be his legacy. His record of non-intervention during a time of massive cuts to the sector speak for themselves. He bottled the debate with Alan Gibbons and wouldn't speak to users or campaigners. Preferring to only interact with those who had nothing but praise for his ineptitude.
It took a while and a name changing fiasco, but the leadership of CILIP saw the light and started to actually challenging his record while in office, but sadly the SCL ("advocates for continuous improvement of the public library service on behalf of local people") still seem to see it as their job to ignore Ed's hypocrisy and bizarre policy of non-intervention and claim Ed was a "champion" of libraries.
I mean honestly. The SCL seem as deluded or duplicitous as the former minister himself. I know they've done a lot of good work on the universal offers, but how can they be advocates of users when they allow politicians to get away with not doing their jobs. I know they claim they have to be impartial and can't criticise government or ministers (doesn't stop the LGA or CILIP or any other body) and if that was the real reason, they should also stop blowing smoke up the backside of the minister who has so obviously failed the people they claim to represent.
The new minister Matthew Hancock I know little about, I'm not a fan of the PPE/SPAD type of MP, but he does seem to have a bit of experience outside of politics. Hopefully with his economics background, he'll understand that money spent on public library provision gives a great return on a small investment for the nation. I'm sure he can't be worse than his predecessor and I'm certain that whatever he does or doesn't do, the SCL will think he's a champion.
Vaizey was the best shadow minister for libraries, but the worst minister for libraries. The massive hypocrisy of his words after what he said in opposition, sat on his backside doing nothing in office while the library service was dismembered will be his legacy. His record of non-intervention during a time of massive cuts to the sector speak for themselves. He bottled the debate with Alan Gibbons and wouldn't speak to users or campaigners. Preferring to only interact with those who had nothing but praise for his ineptitude.
It took a while and a name changing fiasco, but the leadership of CILIP saw the light and started to actually challenging his record while in office, but sadly the SCL ("advocates for continuous improvement of the public library service on behalf of local people") still seem to see it as their job to ignore Ed's hypocrisy and bizarre policy of non-intervention and claim Ed was a "champion" of libraries.
Thank you for championing libraries and SCL over the past six years @edvaizey it has been a pleasure working with you.— UK SCL (@UKSCL) July 16, 2016
I mean honestly. The SCL seem as deluded or duplicitous as the former minister himself. I know they've done a lot of good work on the universal offers, but how can they be advocates of users when they allow politicians to get away with not doing their jobs. I know they claim they have to be impartial and can't criticise government or ministers (doesn't stop the LGA or CILIP or any other body) and if that was the real reason, they should also stop blowing smoke up the backside of the minister who has so obviously failed the people they claim to represent.
The new minister Matthew Hancock I know little about, I'm not a fan of the PPE/SPAD type of MP, but he does seem to have a bit of experience outside of politics. Hopefully with his economics background, he'll understand that money spent on public library provision gives a great return on a small investment for the nation. I'm sure he can't be worse than his predecessor and I'm certain that whatever he does or doesn't do, the SCL will think he's a champion.
Saturday, 16 April 2016
Difficult, like asking which lunatic should run the asylum.
I emailed Oxfordshire county council how they believe they can still be providing a service that meets the requirements of the act by having no mobile libraries and also asked if they're investigating joint working with other authorities to try and save money on the huge back office costs. The portfolio holder Cllr Lorraine Lindsay-Gale responded:
They've clearly taken the guidance published by the DCMS here The phrase highlighted is almost word for word taken from the government guidance. There is nothing in the original act that defines what is "reasonable" or that talks about constraints on funding being as a factor on what is comprehensive and efficient for all. The rural city divide on service provision is only going to increase further with the end to mobile libraries, compounded by the cuts to bus subsidies. Since the county council is run by the tory group with a handful of complicit independents, you would have thought the tories would be doing more to shore up support in their rural divisions.
Slightly off topic, with the tories nationally forcing all schools to become academies, abolishing local authority control and David Cameron wanting to see Oxfordshire County Council abolished and replaced with smaller unitary authorities, then perhaps time is up for OCC and slashing libraries doesn't matter as most of the councillors will be losing their "allowances" soon. Certainly Dave has no qualms in wading in to decide policy on local matters where he has no electoral business doing so, and I suspect when the local government minister Greg Clark makes his decision on Oxfordshire, it won't be contradicting what Dave has already stated as his preferred option.
Despite hating all the political parties equally, its hard to ignore what a massive mess the tories are intent on making of things in local government, schools and the NHS. They are mostly a continuation of failed policies from Labours last stint in government, but with added ideological zeal. I'm sure there'll be plenty work for the consultants and blue sky bullshitters while the services are slashed.
The decision to cease the Mobile Library Service whilst it is something the Council regrets does not impact upon our responsibilities under the 1964 Act. Comprehensive has been taken to mean delivering a service accessible to all residents using reasonable means and an efficient service must make the best use of the assets available in order to meet core objectives whilst recognising that there are constraints on council resources. Whilst regretting the closure of the service, the council feels that it can offer those service users affected by the withdrawal of the service alternative library provision using other reasonable means. This includes access to a Home Library Service, our branch network of 43 libraries and digital technology.Any further proposals that might emerge in the future would of course be consulted upon and we will ensure that we continue to meet our statutory duty. Clearly the future structure of Local Government and opportunities for partnership are very much part of current thinking and planning.
They've clearly taken the guidance published by the DCMS here The phrase highlighted is almost word for word taken from the government guidance. There is nothing in the original act that defines what is "reasonable" or that talks about constraints on funding being as a factor on what is comprehensive and efficient for all. The rural city divide on service provision is only going to increase further with the end to mobile libraries, compounded by the cuts to bus subsidies. Since the county council is run by the tory group with a handful of complicit independents, you would have thought the tories would be doing more to shore up support in their rural divisions.
Slightly off topic, with the tories nationally forcing all schools to become academies, abolishing local authority control and David Cameron wanting to see Oxfordshire County Council abolished and replaced with smaller unitary authorities, then perhaps time is up for OCC and slashing libraries doesn't matter as most of the councillors will be losing their "allowances" soon. Certainly Dave has no qualms in wading in to decide policy on local matters where he has no electoral business doing so, and I suspect when the local government minister Greg Clark makes his decision on Oxfordshire, it won't be contradicting what Dave has already stated as his preferred option.
Despite hating all the political parties equally, its hard to ignore what a massive mess the tories are intent on making of things in local government, schools and the NHS. They are mostly a continuation of failed policies from Labours last stint in government, but with added ideological zeal. I'm sure there'll be plenty work for the consultants and blue sky bullshitters while the services are slashed.
Saturday, 5 March 2016
A cynic is what an idealist calls a realist.
Now that Oxfordshire County Council has passed its latest budget cuts, they're going to completely abolish the mobile library service. This is completely at odds with their responsibility under library act. But we've known beyond doubt for a long time now that Lazy Vaizey won't lift a finger. I suspect even if the councils decided to set fire to all our libraries, he'd not be "minded" to do anything. I've asked the councillor responsible how they still think this is a statutory service, I await the answer with interest. There has been lots of handbags over the cuts between the tory councillors and Call Me Dave. And now the latest twist in the saga is the PM and other local MP's have said they back the idea to abolish the county council and have the district councils become unitary authorities, its in the local paper here. Whether this is really revenge by Cameron or not I've no idea, the districts who have very little to do would love the chance at more money and power. Oxford City Council are so bored that they even tried to bring in a bylaw saying buskers have to smile when performing last year. (ffs!)
Councils procure most of their services these days in supposedly competitive tendering. Having the roads, schools, libraries and fire service etc, all split out into more bodies to have to procure these services is completely stupid. Anybody not motivated by getting more power for their own little empire or having half a brain would realise that its a stupid way to proceed. Sadly there seems to be little political appetite to have one unitary Oxfordshire authority. The political vested interests are against it. But if people was put before party, the clear way is on unitary with a elected mayor and a pr voting system to give proper representation to voters and have one body for the area delivering all the services and sweeping away the bored and restless tier of local government.
In Swindon down the road, a FOI was put in to see how Walcot library was doing on book issues and you can read stuff I wrote here detailing how the book issues fell off a cliff when the library was handed over to volunteers. The latest data is here and it short here is the trend:
Councils procure most of their services these days in supposedly competitive tendering. Having the roads, schools, libraries and fire service etc, all split out into more bodies to have to procure these services is completely stupid. Anybody not motivated by getting more power for their own little empire or having half a brain would realise that its a stupid way to proceed. Sadly there seems to be little political appetite to have one unitary Oxfordshire authority. The political vested interests are against it. But if people was put before party, the clear way is on unitary with a elected mayor and a pr voting system to give proper representation to voters and have one body for the area delivering all the services and sweeping away the bored and restless tier of local government.
In Swindon down the road, a FOI was put in to see how Walcot library was doing on book issues and you can read stuff I wrote here detailing how the book issues fell off a cliff when the library was handed over to volunteers. The latest data is here and it short here is the trend:
From 16,269 in 07/08 and 14/15 figure is 1650. So if you spread this level of "success" across the library service in Swindon, I cannot see it being anything other than a huge disaster. The other libraries between 07/08 didn't have this catastrophic drop, only Walcot. Again where's the DCMS and the minister riding in to the rescue? Its clearly a hugely diminished service for very little saving. They're not going to solve the inter generational illiteracy in Wiltshire by less people reading books.
The final thing I wanted to briefly talk about, now the taskforce has been given more money and time to deliver whatever it is they're supposed to be doing. Its a scandal there's still no user representation on the taskforce. Same old faces from the same old bodies kicking the can down the road, purely with the purpose of giving Vaizey a defense when he's accused of doing nothing for the library service. I've suggested they ask the TLC to suggest someone to go on there. The comments on the taskforce blog are better and more insightful than the jargon filled content they're currently producing. These are particularly good.
Tuesday, 26 January 2016
This is a British democracy, Bernard!
Lot of
stuff flying round about the SCL and its decision to not support the CILIP My
Library My Right campaign and Halifax teaching people computer skills. The
things CILIP are campaigning for:
- The public’s rights to libraries to be recognised and respected
- Public libraries to be treated as the statutory services they are
- The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) to carry out their legal duties under the 1964 Public Libraries and Museums Act
- Statutory guidance for local authorities on their duties under the 1964 Public Libraries and Museums Act from DCMS, with support from CILIP and the library and information profession
Which
seems pretty straight forward, it seems to just be that libraries are recognised as
the statutory service they are. So many times the LGA, councils and others have
keep pushing the line that libraries aren't really statutory and they can be
cut. I find it very peculiar that the SCL don't support this rather basic
recognition of libraries. The president of the SCL has came out and defended
the line yesterday in PLN.
And I don't think anyone doubts the hard work the SCL and the task force are
putting in, but whose agenda are they following? I keep coming back to the line
on the SCL website:
"advocates
for continuous improvement of the public library service on behalf of local
people."
How can
they not support My Library My Right but supposedly advocate for improvement of
the library service on our behalf? They are in the odd position of having the
Universal Offers (not a campaign) that says what your library service should
provide, in great detail. But won’t support the user’s right to an actual
library. To me they are both campaigns.
Is it because the offers were cleared by Vaizey and the DCMS so that campaign is ok? But
because CILIP and library users have a low opinion of the superintendence of
the library service by Vaizey and the DCMS, then SCL if it wants to remain in the tent can’t support
it? Perhaps it’s not what you campaign on, it’s who you campaign with is the issue. Obviously
I have nothing factual to base this on as we only see what’s minuted between
the SCL/Taskfoce/DCMS etc and I suspect like what happens in government now to prevent FOI later on, any really meaty discussions never get written down.
When I think of the LGA, SCL & the taskforce I’m reminded of the
great Tony Benn quote:
“one can ask five questions:
- what power do you have;
- where did you get it;
- in whose interests do you exercise it;
- to whom are you accountable;
- and, how can we get rid of you?
Anyone who cannot answer the last of those questions does not live in a
democratic system."
Again, just to stress, no one can doubt the hard work and hours put in
by the SCL and Taskforce. But in whose interests are they really exercising the
power they have?
On the Halifax thing, no private company does anything unless there’s
something in it for them. Subtle marketing, good PR. The private sector doesn’t
do things for free. I think David McMenemy nailed it with this tweet:
Something ironic in bank employees undertaking work in libraries when the bailout that kept them employed is reason libraries are closing.
— David McMenemy (@D_McMenemy) January 20, 2016
How utterly, utterly awful it must be to lose your job, or have your job under constant threat because of “austerity”
then have the banking sector leveraging ailing libraries for a bit
of good PR. Vaizey popped up to say when launching the digital champions "we couldn't do that job without companies like Halifax".
https://twitter.com/AskHalifaxBank/status/689827075377774592
So they you go, Ed either doesn't think library staff know how to show people how to use computers or its a back handed recognition that libraries are losing staff fast and only the good will of the banking sector can save them.
https://twitter.com/AskHalifaxBank/status/689827075377774592
So they you go, Ed either doesn't think library staff know how to show people how to use computers or its a back handed recognition that libraries are losing staff fast and only the good will of the banking sector can save them.
Monday, 14 September 2015
Government figures are a nonsense, anyway.
A copy of the cipfa dataset that shows all the library authorities visits and issues paints a really grim picture for the library sector. Even during the good times of New Labour when the public sector was awash with money the service was declining alarmingly. It doesn't matter which of the trends you look at, for most of the library services it has been all downhill:
Wales and Northern Ireland are doing significantly better on issues than England and Scotland. I don't think our friends in those countries have different reading levels and habits than us in England and Scotland. There really is a lot of fail to go round. I can't blame it all on Vaizey this time.
Even more interestingly some of the library authorities have completely bucked the trend on the issues/loans. Below are the ten worst and ten best on percentage change on loans from 03/04 to 13/14:
The Southwark figure looks iffy, but I'm not sure why. I know there are potential disparities in how visits data could be collected but the numbers for issues/loans should be consistently collected and we're looking at like for like.
What I don't understand is, councils up and down the land have gone to great trouble to submit this data and what have the DCMS being doing with it? Nothing it looks like. I presume they know how to used spreadsheets in that department. I know the department of transport has trouble making calculations for rail franchises, perhaps the DCMS are scared in case they get a formula wrong or something?
There is clearly lessons to be learned and bollockings to be given based on this data but because there's zero leadership in the sector as Vaizey is always non-minded, I suspect nothing will be done by the DCMS. Perhaps the Libraries taskforce can look into what the formula for success is and try and spread this best practice around publically so we all know what works and what doesn't.
The full data is here, if you have any idea why some authorites are doing well and some seem to be completely useless please let someone know.
Wales and Northern Ireland are doing significantly better on issues than England and Scotland. I don't think our friends in those countries have different reading levels and habits than us in England and Scotland. There really is a lot of fail to go round. I can't blame it all on Vaizey this time.
Even more interestingly some of the library authorities have completely bucked the trend on the issues/loans. Below are the ten worst and ten best on percentage change on loans from 03/04 to 13/14:
The Southwark figure looks iffy, but I'm not sure why. I know there are potential disparities in how visits data could be collected but the numbers for issues/loans should be consistently collected and we're looking at like for like.
What I don't understand is, councils up and down the land have gone to great trouble to submit this data and what have the DCMS being doing with it? Nothing it looks like. I presume they know how to used spreadsheets in that department. I know the department of transport has trouble making calculations for rail franchises, perhaps the DCMS are scared in case they get a formula wrong or something?
There is clearly lessons to be learned and bollockings to be given based on this data but because there's zero leadership in the sector as Vaizey is always non-minded, I suspect nothing will be done by the DCMS. Perhaps the Libraries taskforce can look into what the formula for success is and try and spread this best practice around publically so we all know what works and what doesn't.
The full data is here, if you have any idea why some authorites are doing well and some seem to be completely useless please let someone know.
Wednesday, 12 August 2015
He can talk in clichés till the cows come home
I haven't written anything on libraries for a while. But today a couple of things got me riled up enough to commit finger to key. The first is the super amazing Birmingham library service have stopped purchasing books, presumably to service their grotesque PFI monstrosity of a central library. Their website alone cost over a million! The second is Alan Gibbons has reissued his debate challenge to the libraries minister Ed Vaizey.
On the first point, on the library service not buying books. To me, this seems on the surface of it a clear breach of the act. It makes specific reference to "of securing, by the keeping of adequate stocks" and if a library authority isn't buying books, then to me it seems a breach of the act. Of course we know already that anything that isn't adhered to in the act isn't going to cause Lazy Vaizey or his minions at the DCMS to batter a eyelid. And my big concern is like we've seen with volunteer libraries, once one starts getting away with it, the others will and not buying books will start to spread across the 151 library authorities. This horrible race to the bottom will end up meaning library services do become nothing more than volunteer run book exchanges, with one central library building sucking up the library budget to service the PFI. Its actually a step worse than the hospital without patients episode of yes minister. This is a hospital without patients or beds.
On the second point, from what I've seen. Vaizey is a blustering coward. He's like Boris Johnson without the Latin or charisma. The DCMS has clearly tried to dodge on his behalf by suggesting a panel debate or having the debate when nobody could turn up. The man's record is awful and I'm not surprised if he's scared to defend it. A kitten with a hernia would wipe the floor with him based on his record. Alan would make mincemeat of him. If Vaizey isn't going to enforce any part of the act or hold library authorities to account for their incompetence and mismanagement and he himself refuses to submit to any form of scrutiny then what's the point of him?
On the first point, on the library service not buying books. To me, this seems on the surface of it a clear breach of the act. It makes specific reference to "of securing, by the keeping of adequate stocks" and if a library authority isn't buying books, then to me it seems a breach of the act. Of course we know already that anything that isn't adhered to in the act isn't going to cause Lazy Vaizey or his minions at the DCMS to batter a eyelid. And my big concern is like we've seen with volunteer libraries, once one starts getting away with it, the others will and not buying books will start to spread across the 151 library authorities. This horrible race to the bottom will end up meaning library services do become nothing more than volunteer run book exchanges, with one central library building sucking up the library budget to service the PFI. Its actually a step worse than the hospital without patients episode of yes minister. This is a hospital without patients or beds.
On the second point, from what I've seen. Vaizey is a blustering coward. He's like Boris Johnson without the Latin or charisma. The DCMS has clearly tried to dodge on his behalf by suggesting a panel debate or having the debate when nobody could turn up. The man's record is awful and I'm not surprised if he's scared to defend it. A kitten with a hernia would wipe the floor with him based on his record. Alan would make mincemeat of him. If Vaizey isn't going to enforce any part of the act or hold library authorities to account for their incompetence and mismanagement and he himself refuses to submit to any form of scrutiny then what's the point of him?
Wednesday, 27 May 2015
Everything is at risk
Oxfordshire County Council (OCC) is preparing for another round of cuts and seems to have forgotten that libraries are a statutory service. At a meeting yesterday Cllr Lawrie Stratford painted a bleak picture for services, using the phrase "Some services may have to be removed and we have to be upfront about that"
OCC designated 21 libraries non-statutory in the last round of cuts and supposedly saved 313k by cutting the staffing in these libraries. The decision was taken most undemocratically by David Camoron and the then leader of the council. Even the deputy leader of the council admitted the consultation was a sham. See here for the sorry history.
But despite the dodgy decision making and the fact it doesn't really save any money (they continue to ignore the costs) the direction of travel seems to be more volunteers in libraries, presumably making more or all libraries non-statutory or cutting the funding and staffing to the non-statutory libraries altogether.
The current leader of OCC was at No 10 today:
I've blogged before about the ever increasing service support costs and yet again they've increased:
OCC designated 21 libraries non-statutory in the last round of cuts and supposedly saved 313k by cutting the staffing in these libraries. The decision was taken most undemocratically by David Camoron and the then leader of the council. Even the deputy leader of the council admitted the consultation was a sham. See here for the sorry history.
But despite the dodgy decision making and the fact it doesn't really save any money (they continue to ignore the costs) the direction of travel seems to be more volunteers in libraries, presumably making more or all libraries non-statutory or cutting the funding and staffing to the non-statutory libraries altogether.
The current leader of OCC was at No 10 today:
A good location to talk about the challenges for local government pic.twitter.com/m2b4iWihwy
— Ian Hudspeth (@ianhudspeth) May 27, 2015
I've blogged before about the ever increasing service support costs and yet again they've increased:
This time by £575,306, in one year far exceeding the supposed 313k savings. The council have said this is because the library service is taking a increased share of the fixed costs as other services have shrunk. I've no idea if this is true or not but you can throw as many volunteers at you want at services and sack the low paid library managers, it isn't going to solve the problem of increasing property costs every year. I've also blogged before about how OCC should be looking at shared services with BucksCC to pool this back office costs to save the front office. You'd expect the Tories as the party of supposed small government would have went here first but it seems clear the tail is still wagging the dog and the front line is yet again going to take the brunt of the cuts in the library service. It all looks very bleak and I feel sorry for the staff in the library service having to face this uncertainty yet again. Despite "everything is at risk" and how bleak things are, in the height of hypocrisy, the council still managed to vote for a 19% increase in allowances a few months ago. If things are so bad, I think that should also be on the table and the average cuts to services should be applied to the councillor "allowances".
Thursday, 7 May 2015
If a library closes in the New Forest, does Vaizey make a sound?
Tomorrow or over the next few weeks we may have a new minister responsible for libraries. Considering the three main parties are uninterested and have no real policies for the library service, very little is likely to change. What is important, is if and when the current post holder Vaizey leaves office, we make sure his legacy for hypocrisy and inaction sticks with his name. Much in the same way Beeching is linked to the destruction of the branch lines, Vaizey's name must be linked to the destruction of the public library service.
We know how good he was in opposition, his now famous quote about the Wirral in 2009:
"Andy Burnham's refusal to take action in the Wirral effectively renders the 1964 Public Libraries Act meaningless. While it is local authorities' responsibility to provide libraries, the Act very clearly lays responsibility for ensuring a good service at the culture secretary's door. It Andy Burnham is not prepared to intervene when library provision is slashed in a local authority such as the Wirral, it is clear that he is ignoring his responsibilities as secretary of state, which in the process renders any sense of libraries being a statutory requirement for local authorities meaningless."
When compared with his inaction in office during the closure of hundreds of libraries, book stock cut and large numbers of libraries dumped on volunteers, the quote will go down as one of the biggest bits of hypocrisy we've ever seen from a politician.
This is also from the man who admitted that he was "completely useless" and got more exercised and angry by the fact he wasn't allowed a Xbox in his office than the destruction of the library service, which he is bound by law to superintend.
The fact that he has a very safe seat and is unlikely to ever be voted out is particularly annoying for those of us who have watched his mixture of inaction and incompetence and want to hold him to account. I do hope that he isn't in post after the dust settles from the election, I cannot imagine anyone else doing a worse job. We just have to make sure that his name is always linked to the destruction of large parts of the public library service.
Bye bye Ed, don't let the door hit you on your lazy arse on the way out.
Update 09/05/15
Despite the clear majority win by the Tories, hopefully we may still have a different libraries minister who can tell the difference between his arse and elbow and actually cares about his job:
We know how good he was in opposition, his now famous quote about the Wirral in 2009:
"Andy Burnham's refusal to take action in the Wirral effectively renders the 1964 Public Libraries Act meaningless. While it is local authorities' responsibility to provide libraries, the Act very clearly lays responsibility for ensuring a good service at the culture secretary's door. It Andy Burnham is not prepared to intervene when library provision is slashed in a local authority such as the Wirral, it is clear that he is ignoring his responsibilities as secretary of state, which in the process renders any sense of libraries being a statutory requirement for local authorities meaningless."
When compared with his inaction in office during the closure of hundreds of libraries, book stock cut and large numbers of libraries dumped on volunteers, the quote will go down as one of the biggest bits of hypocrisy we've ever seen from a politician.
This is also from the man who admitted that he was "completely useless" and got more exercised and angry by the fact he wasn't allowed a Xbox in his office than the destruction of the library service, which he is bound by law to superintend.
The fact that he has a very safe seat and is unlikely to ever be voted out is particularly annoying for those of us who have watched his mixture of inaction and incompetence and want to hold him to account. I do hope that he isn't in post after the dust settles from the election, I cannot imagine anyone else doing a worse job. We just have to make sure that his name is always linked to the destruction of large parts of the public library service.
Bye bye Ed, don't let the door hit you on your lazy arse on the way out.
Update 09/05/15
Despite the clear majority win by the Tories, hopefully we may still have a different libraries minister who can tell the difference between his arse and elbow and actually cares about his job:
Ed Vaizey MP said he'd love to retain brief as Minister of state for Culture and Digital Economy but he will most likely find out on Monday.
— Callum Keown (@OxMailCallumK) May 8, 2015
Wednesday, 5 November 2014
Samaritans Radar
Disclosure: I am a Samaritan volunteer, the views below are my own, I don't represent the organisation and I've not sought permission to write this. I really, really didn't want to come out publicly as a Samaritan in case people who know me are put off from ringing. I didn't want to come out against the organisation I volunteer for but I've felt I have to speak out.
The reason I become a Samaritan are partly personal, but mainly because they're non-judgemental, listen, don't try and tell people what to do & respect peoples views. I'm a bit of a left libertarian and these views chime with mine very strongly. They're also completely confidential, you can tell Samaritans anything and we duty bound to not disclose it unless we have permission or with a couple of common sense exceptions (court order, bomb warning etc, see here)
I heard about Samaritans Radar like everyone else on social media and was immediately concerned. I wasn't able to understand how a app was conceived by us that doesn't come near to what the Samaritans are trained to do.
The legal rights or wrongs don't concern me. The ethics of this and refusal to listen do, even to not admit there are people who are concerned about this has been very upsetting, for me personally, but more importantly the people we are supposed to be there for the callers both past, present and future. Those who come to us because we don't judge, we don't pass on their details to others, don't give them our personal views or advice. We listen. Two tiny words but for me its what Samaritans are supposed to be all about and they're two very powerful words, we listen.
Sadly the organisation for reasons I don't understand is refusing to listen and I understand peoples fear, angry and frustration over this. I don't want to be stalked by this app either, I want to choose to use it and have control over who uses it on me, not others I don't know harvesting my darkest tweets.
Please, please don't link this app to what Samaritans volunteers do on the phones, text and email.
Sunday, 6 July 2014
When all three parties agree, something must be wrong
The SCL are now thinking about stepping in to help the volunteer libraries. In SCL stakeholders meeting, I made the point that there's still no evidence to support the sustainability or effectiveness of libraries ran completely or supported by volunteers. They seem to want to help keep them going, as once a library closes its going to be harder to open it. It seems this vital piece of research on if they actually are a good idea isn't needed, all the parties seem to think this is the solution to the funding cuts to local government. You volunteer to run the library and pay for it twice, if you live a area with a volunteer library, you're likely to get a different level of service to another area, despite having paid the same tax. The whole thing is loaded with jargon and new speak to try and make them sound like they're actually a good idea. One thing is clear to me, if a volunteer library somehow manages to keep going for a couple of years and the library service gets a bit of extra budget for staffing, the last place they'll put it is back into the volunteer libraries. They'll waste it on whatever the current fad is.
Having a skim through the meeting notes on the SCL website, it seems the role of libraries advisor is to continue. Someone called Colin Gibson has taken over the role temporarily as libraries advisor. I presume once they've rubber stamped the closure of the Advisory Council on Libraries this will be a permanent role. It would be unthinkable for someone paid by us the taxpayer to have a independent public view outside of the department. The ACL should be brought back and users given a say on what is happening and if the minister is failing to enforce the act or not, the civil servants have failed us.
The SCL website has had a redesign, lots of new areas like position statements (currently empty). I thought they didn't take positions on issues, perhaps they'll give their official view on volunteer run libraries?
With the Sieghart report seemingly showing very little positive, the SCL considering wading in to support the failing idiocy of volunteer libraries and the main parties all in complete agreement on it being a great idea then its very grim times indeed for public libraries in the UK. I feel sorry for the librarians that remain that are tasked with making a success of the volunteer libraries. The huge back office recharges remain off the table as does the clearly obvious approach of having less library authorities to drastically reduce these huge recharges.
Having a skim through the meeting notes on the SCL website, it seems the role of libraries advisor is to continue. Someone called Colin Gibson has taken over the role temporarily as libraries advisor. I presume once they've rubber stamped the closure of the Advisory Council on Libraries this will be a permanent role. It would be unthinkable for someone paid by us the taxpayer to have a independent public view outside of the department. The ACL should be brought back and users given a say on what is happening and if the minister is failing to enforce the act or not, the civil servants have failed us.
The SCL website has had a redesign, lots of new areas like position statements (currently empty). I thought they didn't take positions on issues, perhaps they'll give their official view on volunteer run libraries?
With the Sieghart report seemingly showing very little positive, the SCL considering wading in to support the failing idiocy of volunteer libraries and the main parties all in complete agreement on it being a great idea then its very grim times indeed for public libraries in the UK. I feel sorry for the librarians that remain that are tasked with making a success of the volunteer libraries. The huge back office recharges remain off the table as does the clearly obvious approach of having less library authorities to drastically reduce these huge recharges.
Thursday, 26 June 2014
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
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.
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.
Sunday, 15 June 2014
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.
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.
Tuesday, 10 June 2014
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.
Tuesday, 15 April 2014
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:
"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:
Thursday, 3 April 2014
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:
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)