Public Testimony Submitted for Spring 1999 Hearings
|
Other Spring 1999 Hearings
|
Dr. Janet Barr, Director, Eastern Suffolk BOCES School Library System;
President, School Library Systems Association of the State of New York
Herbert Biblo, Director, Long Island Reference and Research Resources Library System
Marshall Botwinick, Director, Henry Waldinger Memorial Library, Valley Stream
Joseph Branin, Dean of Libraries, State University of New York at Stony Brook
Lillian Broad, President, Board of Trustees, Nassau Library System
Joseph Caruso, President, Elmwood Taxpayers Association
Marianne Cooper, Dean, Queens College Graduate School of Library and Information Science
Susan deSciora, Director, Hewlett-Woodmere Public Library
Joseph Eisner, Director, Plainedge Public Library (Massapequa)
Anthony Ferguson, Columbia University
representing the New York Comprehensive Research Libraries
and the New York Consortium of Consortia
Maurice J. Freedman, Director, Westchester Library System
Arthur L. Friedman, Associate Dean of Information for Distance and Distributive Learning, Nassau Community College
Jeanne L. Gailbraith, Assistant Director for Access Services
Health Sciences Library, State University of New York at Stony Brook
Judith Gibbard, Director, Patchogue-Medford Public Library
Andrew Hamm, President, Public Library Directors Association of Suffolk County
Peter Iannone, Retired Educator
Carol Kroll, Director, Nassau School Library System
Shirley Lang, President, Board of Trustees, Syosset Public Library
Valerie Lewis, Access and Assistive Technology Specialist, Suffolk Cooperative Library System
Ann Maguire, Chairperson, Elmwood Library Committee
John McKay, Director, Glencove Public Library
Walter Rabe, President, Greenlawn Civic Association
Dina Reilly, Director, Deer Park Public Library; and
Chair, Long Island Library Research Council Legislative Committee
Alan Roeckel, Director, Garden City Public Library
Harriet Rothstein, Director, Western Suffolk BOCES School Library System
Kathleen Rumplein, President, Elwood School District;
and Legislative Chair for the Elwood PTA
Paula Sievert, School Library Media Specialist, Daniel Street School, Lindenhurst
and fifth grade students Regina Becker, Keri Ann Quigley and Christopher Czubay
Betsy Sywetz, Deputy Director, U.S. Institute of Museum and Library Services
Peter Ward
Edward C. Wendol, Trustee, Comsewogue Public Library, Port Jefferson Station
Janet L. Barr, Ph.D., President, School Library Systems Association of New York State (SLSA)*; and
Director, Eastern Suffolk BOCES School Library System
The School Library Systems Association thanks the members of the Commission for your concern for providing equitable access to information for all New Yorkers.
Library Systems = Resource Sharing
Library Systems are designed to enable equitable access to information by promoting resource sharing among all types of libraries. School Library Systems launched resource sharing in New York State’s 5000 public and non-public K-12 schools in the 1985-1986 school year. Since then interlibrary loan services have become commonplace in schools.
Electronic Doorway Libraries = Access to Online Databases
A statewide electronic library initiative over the past two years – the Electronic Doorway Library project – is making a difference in the intellectual lives of K-12 students. As students electronically access information in other libraries and from commercial publishers, they are able to obtain appropriate materials for their research projects. This access to an infinite amount of information, however, is a two edged sword. It enables students to locate overwhelming amounts of information but gives them little guidance in the searching and selection of appropriate materials. Certified library media specialists are critical at this juncture to provide metacognitive research strategies for recommended databases.
Research Skills = Lifelong Independent Learners
Developmentally appropriate research skills K-12 are essential elements of the New York State Standards in all subject areas and in the new national standards Information Power: Building Partnerships for Learning. "Information Literacy Standard 1: The student who is information literate accesses information efficiently and effectively." An efficient way for kindergarten children to access information is by listening to a story read to them by their school library media specialist. They learn how to locate the book on the shelves and check it out to share with their parents at home. A high school senior may be involved in an advanced scientific research program with his school library media specialist acting as a mentor for his/her research at a nearby university or scientific laboratory. Research is being infused into the curriculum at all levels and in all subjects. As certified library media specialists and teachers work together to plan and implement lessons, students will demonstrate the proficiencies needed to attain the Standards.
Specific Needs
Continuation and Expansion of Electronic Doorway Library Program
For the past two years the School Library Systems have pooled their Electronic Doorway Library (EDL) funds to make a commercial database of over 580 periodicals/magazines available to schools with web access. Students from New York City to Buffalo, from Montauk to Plattsburgh to Jamestown are using this online database to efficiently research their topics. With minimal EDL funds the School Library Systems Association has been able to provide valuable research materials to K-12 students and provide equitable access statewide. The School Library Systems Association supports academic excellence and has provided great value for the State’s dollar. In order for us to continue this service beyond the 1998-1999 school year, it will be necessary to reinstate and expand the Electronic Doorway Library funding. SLSA wants to continue obtaining value for New York State by developing additional statewide services for school library media centers.
Support of Certified Library Media Specialists in Every School
Students use school library media centers constantly. They feel comfortable reading, writing and doing their research. They work in groups or can be totally independent. As they develop their information literacy proficiencies, they should have the benefit of a certified library media specialist to guide them. At present many elementary school students in the State are not provided with this professional guidance. Frequently these students are in low performing schools. Recent research results from the Colorado Department of Education indicate that "students in schools with well-staffed library media programs averaged reading scores five to ten points higher than those without such staffing. Average reading scores also tended to be five to ten points higher for students whose library media programs offered district-wide catalogs, online database services, LAN access to library resources, and access to the World Wide Web" (August 15, 1998). Let’s create level playing fields by providing all schools with certified library media specialists and help every child in New York State achieve higher proficiencies.
Strengthening of School Library Systems
School Library Systems need to be strengthened in the following ways: 1) additional diversified staffing in each School Library System, 2) financial incentives for mergers, and 3) State personnel assigned to the School Library System program full-time in both the State Library and the State Education Department.
Conclusion
The forty-two School Library Systems are poised to provide additional services to every school, every student, and every staff member. Please keep us informed of your deliberations so that we can continue to work together to support the educational mission of the State. Your advocacy for Electronic Doorway Libraries, certified library media specialists in every school, and the strengthening of School Library Systems will increase the likelihood for all children to access information efficiently and effectively.
*Members of the School Library Systems Association include the Directors of the forty-two School Library Systems in New York State.
Anthony W. Ferguson, Associate University Librarian, Columbia University
representing the New York Comprehensive Research Libraries
and the New York State Consortium of Consortia
My name is Tony Ferguson and I am responsible for developing Columbia University's library collections. In that role I represent Columbia during meetings of the New York Comprehensive Research Libraries group (NYCRL, also known as the Big 11). I also represent these 11 libraries in meetings of yet another group: The New York Consortium of Consortia.
Today I come to ask the Regents Commission to support the Consortia's three-prong approach to providing affordable access to electronic informational resources and services to all type of libraries in New York. We urge you to support the concept of a "core collection" of informational resources for all New Yorkers, we urge you to support the funding of one or more full time positions in the New York State office of General Services devoted to negotiating state-wide contracts, we urge you provide the needed fiscal support to take New York's educational telecommunication's infrastructure into the 21st Century so that the current and next generation of New York residents will remain competitive in today's economy, and will be well-informed citizens.
You might wonder, why is a private university library like Columbia's, with its own significant financial resources, so keen on promoting these three public education programs? There are a number of reasons. First, statewide licenses take advantage of the aggregated buying power of New York's unequalled educational system and Columbia will benefit just as much as all other universities in the State. It is important to remember that the economics of information is not much different from any manufactured good. The producer sells at one price, the whole seller at another, and the retailer at yet another. The price goes up at each stage of the process. Libraries on their own pay retail. Together they pay wholesale.
These savings are very real for Columbia. By taking advantage of the New York State license a collection of databases called First Search, Columbia's libraries saved $40,000 this year over what we paid for the exact same group of databases during the previous year. Instead of paying $1.00 for each of Columbia's 24,000 plus students for a popular electronic encyclopedia, we paid 42 cents. For another news and economics information database, statewide licenses cut Columbia's expenses by 40 percent. While a private institution like Columbia has significant resources, every dollar saved is a dollar that can be used to pay for additional informational resources to educate its New York students.
A second reason, related specifically to the "core collection" concept, is that Columbia's students benefit just as much as the other students in the State. Dollars not spent on these basic materials are dollars that can be spent on more specialized materials -- which materials can be used when students are selectively referred to Columbia for resources not owned by their own libraries.
A third reason is that middle school and senior high school students who have access to these kinds of materials will come to Columbia better prepared than would be otherwise the case.
Let me now turn briefly to the request for positions in OGS, dedicated to negotiating statewide contracts. These positions will help all institutions in the State, whether private or public. Instead of hundreds of librarians spending their time going through contracts, haggling over prices, one or two professionals do a much better job and free these librarians up to work with public library patrons, students, and members of the faculty.
Finally, I would like to add a few words about the need for funds to support the improvement of the State's telecommunications infrastructure. As long as New York's libraries have to rely upon middlemen to lease databases and then sell access to libraries at a 20-40% higher price, we will continue to be information poor. If we could invest in the infrastructure that would link all of the cable being laid throughout the State to New York's institutions of higher learning, the large libraries in the State could lease the databases themselves and provide much cheaper access to the other libraries in New York.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak about these three critical needs.
[NOTE: Others testifying on behalf of the New York State Consortium of Consortia include Robert J. Dobbs, Jr., at the Syracuse hearing on May 14, and Loretta Ebert at the Albany hearing on June 3. In addition, a statement from NYSCoC can be found under Comments elsewhere on this site.]
Arthur L. Friedman, Associate Dean of Instruction/Distance & Distributed Learning, Nassau Community College, Garden City
It is almost ten years since New York State conducted a plenary program to determine appropriate directions for library service to take in New York State. At that time, a Governor’s Conference on libraries also brought together concerned individuals from all parts of the state to build consensus on the needs with respect to libraries and to formulate a set of goals which the state should try to achieve. Perhaps the first task of this Commission should be to review those goals, determine which have been met, which are still appropriate and valid as we approach the millennium, and what individuals or agencies to charge with a leadership role as the agents of change. However, that task may be too mundane, so let’s begin our examination of the current needs of libraries with some fundamental questions.
Is library service important to New York State?
I believe, and I hope you share my belief, that libraries are an essential component of our State’s economic engine. Some of the most heavily used items in our collections are those found in the business reference sections, as individuals search for the information they need to become successful investors. Entrepreneurs and small business owners use their public library collections to build new businesses, modify their business plan, and investigate markets for their ideas. Through the interlibrary loan protocols built by our Library System organizations, resources are readily shared by academic, special and public libraries.
Library service costs money. Where will the fiscal resources come from?
Academic libraries receive limited direct State support. Coordinated collection development funding is meager when compared to total acquisition budgets. Yet, when we look at the aggregated interlibrary loan activity in New York, it amounts to the total resources of a medium-sized college library! New electronic formats require libraries to expend funds for infrastructure modification, purchase of equipment and supplies, as well as training of personnel and clients. Simultaneously, libraries must spend funds to maintain existing print and periodical collections. The costs for these materials continue to rise faster than library budget allocations. How much can we expect students to pay in tuition and fees to maintain the quality libraries they need for their education?
Where is the student’s library?
As the coordinator of distance learning programs at my institution, I am fully aware of the problems students have in gaining access to the resources they need to complete research assignments. Fortunately, many of our students can be supported by the library of our college and the resources we can make available through inter-institutional cooperation. Our institution supports a library. However, there are many providers who don’t want to spend their profits on the creation and maintenance of a library. Organizations such as the University of Phoenix and Jones International University come easily to mind. With accrediting agencies beginning to offer legitimacy to these organizations, who will be responsible for providing the library resources the students need? We invite members of this Commission to participate in conferences dealing with this issue. In fact, the Long Island Library Resources Council has organized a conference on this issue for October 14 and 15, 1999.
Politicians may not want to hear it. However, the answer to many of the problems facing libraries is MONEY, MONEY, MONEY! Libraries have been, and continue to be a bargain throughout the State. Librarians are very careful with the resources they are given. Unfortunately, one cannot obtain the resources unless someone pays for it. If schemes to require per use charges take hold, we will expand the chasm between those who can afford to pay and those who cannot. How will this provide New York with an educated and skilled workforce?
In his fiscal year 2000 budget, Mr. Pataki requested NO additional funding for libraries. He demonstrated a willingness to continue library funding at 1995 levels. The New York Library Association identified a need for a minimum increase in library aid of over $60 million. The Board of Regents requested that library support be increased for electronic doorway library services, construction, and State Library acquisitions. The legislature is considering very small increases in library support.
While members of the library community have a vision for the continuing development of outstanding library service to all New Yorkers, we have yet to see that vision shared. I hope that this Commission will set as its working goal the building of a document which will highlight our visions of libraries which meet the needs of those patrons who need the most technologically advanced resources as well as those who seek materials in a more traditional form. I hope you will articulate a vision that provides quality library service to students at all ages of their development, from Kindergarten through graduate studies. I hope you will build a vision that requires all New Yorkers to share the costs and benefits of open library collections.
You have much work to do and I wish you well in your efforts.
Betsy Sywetz, Deputy Director, Institute of Museum and Library Services, Office of Library Services
The Federal Role in Support of Library Service
Library service is generally considered a local responsibility in the United States. This philosophy is based on the assumption that the people who use library services understand what they want and need and will make economic decisions about the use of resources to obtain the services that are important to them. It is also grounded in a desire to limit intrusion by government into people’s lives and minimize governmental control of information. As a result, most public funding for library service comes from the local community. In New York State about 10% of library funding comes from the State and less than 2% from the federal government.
In many communities and organizations, library services are thriving because people see a value in having access through technology to enormous amounts of information and services that allow them to make good use of this information. In others, however, because of lack of knowledge about what libraries can provide or constrained fiscal resources, people are not able to obtain information or assistance in navigating the information glut. Equitable and excellent access to information too often depends on where people live or their personal resources that can be applied to this need.
The Federal government assumed an ongoing role in community library services with the Library Services Act (LSA) of 1956, which was designed to promote the development of public library service in rural areas. At that time more than 27 million children and adults were living in areas without public library services and 53 million more had only inadequate services available to them. The first LSA authorization was $30 million, $7.5 million for each of four years. The Act provided for cost-sharing between the States and Federal government. It was regarded by the Eisenhower administration as a demonstration act that would expire at the end of five years.
Instead of expiring, LSA was expanded to the Library Services and Construction Act (LSCA) in 1964. LSCA retained the purpose of extending public library services to those without such services or with inadequate services but removed population restrictions enabling services to urban as well as rural areas. During hearings on the proposed legislation, the Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health, Education and Welfare stated, "It is clear that additional Federal assistance for library programs is necessary." $25 million was appropriated in 1965. Over the years, the Act was amended to place a greater emphasis on services to populations with special needs.
A study of LSCA in 1969 describes the following New York State objectives:
- to extend public library service to those without convenient access to a library outlet;
- to improve the informational and reference services of public library systems;
- to promote outreach of the public library to the disadvantaged, the deprived and minority groups;
- to encourage planning, studies and intersystem experimentation which will assist in the development and evaluation of library programs;
- to encourage cooperation to meet the needs of students of all ages;
- to support the development of adequate staff, professional and non-professional, and trustees;
- to promote programs using newer educational media;
- to assist in establishing a statewide acquisition and cataloging center; and
- to strengthen the State Library’s reference and consultant services.
Since the Federal money was available under an act that had a terminal date, the New York State Library wished to avoid having any library become dependent on this support. The State also hoped to reserve funds for the initiation of new projects. Some other States, lacking the resources available in New York, used the Federal funds for basic library services.
In addition to support for unserved and underserved populations, LSCA funded construction, strengthened the State Library Administrative agencies, assisted metropolitan libraries and encouraged interlibrary cooperation. Many of the cooperative activities we take for granted today originated in LSCA projects. The concept of interlibrary cooperation was greatly influenced from its beginnings by the New York experience, which was supported by both State and Federal funds.
Title II of the Higher Education Act (HEA) was passed in 1965, a component of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society program. Funding under this Act was directed at improving college and university library resources, supporting library education programs through fellowships and scholarships, and funding institutes to train librarians already in the field. It also included funding for research and demonstration programs to advance library service. Activities such as these that go beyond local and state interests have traditionally been viewed as appropriate for Federal involvement.
Appropriations for HEA Title II programs diminished over the years. When the Library Services and Construction Act was reauthorized in 1996 as the Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA), they were reorganized into the National Leadership Grant program with eligibility expanded to include libraries of all kinds, as well as universities and library schools.
The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), which administers LSTA, was created by the Museum and Library Services Act of 1996, of which LSTA is Subchapter II. IMLS is an independent agency that also administers aid to museums in a variety of programs. The first Director was Diane Frankel who had headed the Institute of Museum Services since 1993.
The largest component of LSTA continues to be the State Program. About 90% of the appropriation goes to the State Library Agencies. Awards are based on a formula that includes a base of $340,000 for each State and a population factor. The Federal share of the costs of activities is limited to 66% and maintenance of effort is required. New York receives approximately $8 million through the LSTA State Program.
From the beginning of LSA, the States were expected to play a major role in designing programs. Under the new LSTA legislation, each State was required to consult with library users as well as its library community and prepare a Five Year Plan. Allowable expenses include: establishing or enhancing electronic linkages among or between libraries; electronically linking libraries with educational, social, or information services; assisting libraries in accessing information through electronic networks; encouraging libraries in different areas, and encouraging different types of libraries, to establish consortia and share resources; or paying costs for libraries to acquire or share computer systems and telecommunications technologies; and targeting library and information services to persons having difficulty using a library and to underserved urban and rural communities. Now that Plans have been approved, States have great flexibility in implementing their Plans.
The first awards to States under LSTA were made in December, 1997. Annual Reports were due December 31, 1998. IMLS staff are in the process of organizing this information to show how States used LSTA funding to improve library service and make an impact on the lives of people who use libraries.
Based on the preliminary figures, most LSTA funds are used for library services with technological enhancements to make content available in all appropriate media and to enhance access by improving electronic networks and linkages. There are also many programs to insure that people who have difficulty using libraries will have access to library services.
Communities without library services continue to be a problem. Although it has been much alleviated by the range of programs implemented since the Library Services Act was passed in 1956, LSTA continues to support outreach projects that target communities without library service and served more than 300,000 people through these projects in 1998.
The National Leadership Grants (NLG) program of LSTA provides support for Education and Training, Research and Demonstration Projects, Digitization or Preservation and Model Programs of Collaboration by Museums and Libraries. Forty-one grants were awarded in Fiscal Year 98. The deadline for FY 99 applications was March 17 and 187 proposals were received. Announcements for the second round of awards will be made in September. IMLS is just beginning to receive progress reports about its current projects.
The President’s budget for FY 2000 includes a provision for a National Digital Library for Education. The National Science Foundation would receive $13 million for resources to support science education. The National Park Service and the Smithsonian would each receive $5 million to make portions of their collections digitally available. IMLS would receive $10 million for a grant program that would help museums and libraries contribute to the proposed Library. Funding in the amount of $5 million for the Library program is in the budget proposal for the National Leadership Grants. IMLS is working to define the program and learn how it fits in with State level activities.
The Native American and Native Hawaiian Library Services program supports library services to Native Hawaiians and the federally recognized tribes and Alaskan Native American villages. These programs originated in the reauthorization and extension of LSCA passed in 1984. Basic, technical assistance, and enhancement grants are available in the LSTA Native American program. Alu Like, an agency that serves Native Hawaiians, administers the program in Hawaii. In FY 99, $2.9 million is available for these programs.
LSTA is a small federal program. In FY 98, $146 million was appropriated to support it. In FY 99, this was increased to $166 million. A portion of this increase was for specific directed projects that are outside both the State Program and the competitive NLG. Although LSTA is no longer considered temporary, it is authorized for six years and the library community has already begun to work to insure it will continue into the next millennium. Although it is a small proportion of funding available for library services, LSTA and its predecessors play an important role in helping libraries address the challenges that face them and in insuring that people are able to get the information they want and need.
Another source of federal support, particularly for school libraries, is the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which is administered by the Department of Education. Under the Act as adopted in 1965, funds were provided to States for the acquisition of school library resources, textbooks and other instructional materials for the use of children and teachers in public and private elementary and secondary schools. The Education Amendments of 1974, Title IV, Part B, consolidated provisions for instructional materials including library resources, financial assistance for strengthening instruction in academic subjects and testing, counseling and guidance provisions.
Since 1974, the program has been subject to reorganization and renaming of programs and a block grant approach for increased state and local control over the spending of federal funds for education. A total of $12 billion supports a wide range of educational programs under ESEA.
Consideration of ESEA reauthorization has begun in this Congress. Programs that affect library service include: Programs for Disadvantaged Students under Title I; School Improvement Program under Titles II and VI; School Reform under the Goals 2000, Educate America Act; and School Assistance in Federally Affected Areas under Title VIII. It is very difficult to track how this Federal funding affects school library media programs but it is important to the library community that school programs continue to have access to this source of support.
The National Institute on Postsecondary Education, Libraries and Lifelong Learning within the Department of Education funds a small number of Field Initiated Studies related to various aspects of education. Occasionally, these grants are for library-related studies. In 1996, a 2 ½ year project to establish Market-Based Adult Lifelong Learning Performance Measures for Public Libraries was funded. This project provided the basis for a 1998 IMLS National Leadership Grant award to teach librarians how to use the measures that were developed.
The National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) also has supported a variety of programs that fund libraries since it was established in 1965. The NEH budget for Fiscal Year 1996 was drastically reduced by more than one-third. In its reorganized form, NEH supports projects related to the humanities in three divisions: Preservation and Access, Public Programs and Research and Education Programs. Through its Challenge Grant program, it helps institutions that enhance the humanities in American life to raise needed resources. The NEH Enterprise Office implements special initiatives, creates partnerships with other federal agencies and private organizations, engages in raising funds for humanities activities and explores other leadership opportunities. NEH also supports federal/state partnerships through state humanities councils. Both IMLS and NEH try to coordinate their efforts to get maximum benefit in both museum and library programs.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) administered a program called the Digital Library 1 from 1994 through 1998 and is currently coordinating the Digital Library Phase 2 (DL2), which seeks to build on and extend research and testbed activities, accelerate development, management and accessibility of digital content and collections, study interactions between humans and digital libraries and create new capabilities and opportunities for digital libraries to serve existing and new user communities. NSF projects have a strong computer science orientation and grant recipients are usually universities engaged in advanced technical research. Other sponsoring agencies for DL2 include the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), National Library of Medicine, Library of Congress, National Endowment for the Humanities, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, with the National Archives and Records Administration, Smithsonian Institution, IMLS and the FBI as partners.
Another federal agency that sometimes supports libraries is the National Telecommunications and Information Administration in the Department of Commerce. The Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure Assistance Program (TIIAP) is a highly competitive, merit-based grant program that brings the benefits of an advanced national information infrastructure to communities throughout the United States. Some of these grants involve libraries as lead applicants, the Denver Public Library and the New York Public Library for example, or as partners.
The Federal Communication Commission’s Universal Service program provides for discounted telecommunications rates, commonly known as the E-Rate. This program is funded by contributions from the providers of telecommunication services and subsidizes the use of telecommunications, including Internet access, by K-12 schools and public libraries. This program was established by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and applicants have just received the first subsidies. Libraries and schools serving poor communities receive the highest support and will be able to buy more services because of this program.
In addition, the federal government supports many direct library services ranging from the Library of Congress, including the Center for the Book program, the National Agricultural Library, the National Library of Medicine, the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), and the National Library of Education, through hundreds of agency libraries and libraries at federal installations such as military bases. The Government Printing Office works to provide access to government information to the public and much information is distributed through the Federal Depository Library System. Another important way the federal government affects library services is through laws and regulations on issues such as intellectual property, postal rates, privacy, decency and the general framework of laws that apply to non-profits, local governments and other organizations that maintain libraries.
It is clear from this long list of federal activities relating to libraries that the federal role in library services is complex. The Government Performance and Review Act (GPRA) requires that all federal agencies insure that activities funded by taxpayers have a positive impact on the lives of people. This can be challenging but it is a worthwhile challenge. IMLS has partnered with five State Library Agencies in a project to re-design LSTA programs to focus on the results. Since States are required to evaluate the results of their LSTA programs before the end of the Five Year Plans, the lessons from these pilots will be helpful. IMLS will be adding a requirement for outcome measures as part of the National Leadership Grant guidelines in 2000.
In order to insure continued support for all kinds of library programs, in all kinds of libraries, it is increasingly important that people know what value they are receiving. Often, people don’t understand where the funding comes from for services they use. It frequently is hard to obtain ongoing funding for established programs even when they have demonstrated success.
To achieve the vision of excellent and equitable library service for everyone, we have to work together at all levels to integrate and coordinate efforts and to develop an informed public able to make good use of library services. If we are successful, libraries that integrate technology with more traditional services offer an unprecedented opportunity to meet basic needs and enrich our lives.
The leaders of the American public library movement in the late nineteenth century had a vision that traced its roots to Thomas Jefferson's firm belief that a democratic government could not function without an informed public. They saw a day when one could go any place in America and ask not if there was a public library but rather where it could be found. That vision has to a great extent been realized in New York State. Thanks to the dedication of many people, most places in our state have a public library where citizens can go to freely seek the whole truth.
Yet, there are still people in New York who do not have access to a public library. In addition, some critics, frustrated with government and traditional institutions, have suggested that public libraries are not all that important or cost-effective -- especially in this age of the Internet. But for the most part, their emphasis on that which is fiscally acceptable has blinded them to that which is socially critical and morally essential.
Today, dark forces of intolerance and hate threaten to divide our communities and corrupt our children. Too many places -- both in our state and in our nation -- are splintered along racial or ethnic lines, with members of one group having little contact or knowledge of the others. The on-line forums of the Internet provide unparalleled access to information. But they also separate the computer haves and have-nots in a technological class division that threatens to divide us even more.
Unlike any other social institution, the public library symbolizes our commitment to the freedom to educate ourselves without restriction. But in addition, we must also make the public aware that a public library celebrates our freedom to change. To become all that we can be. To improve the condition of ourselves and our communities. And most importantly, to understand how our diversity strengthens us as a free people.
The Commission is charged with taking a visionary look at the future of library services in New York State in the 21st Century and will address many topics of practical importance. My sincere hope is that in addressing these practical concerns, the Commission will remember the words of Archibald MacLeish:
What is more important in a library than anything else -- than everything else -- is the fact that it exists.