|
Albany Public Library, April 26, 2000
Rochester Public Library,
April 7, 2000 Additional Comments submitted to the Commission |
I stand before you with some sadness today, because we, all of us in this room, are very concerned that the library legislation on which you and we have worked so hard, may not come to fruition in this legislative session. We are told by the State Librarian that funding for construction and for NOVEL -- two very important and visionary pieces of your work -- is hanging by a thread. I am dismayed that, with these two exciting and important initiatives, we are possibly not able to be successful here in Albany. This, if we indeed are met with failure, does not augur well for implementation of the Regents Commission recommendations. Your vision is critical to the success of libraries and we may not be able to achieve it.
The Clinton-Essex-Franklin Library System covers three counties in the Adirondack Mountains. We serve 30 public libraries and 5 reading centers. Additionally our Bookmobile makes 58 stops on a three-week cycle. We do not deliver adequate library service now - adequate in terms of what contemporary communities might expect of a forward-looking library service, I do not say this in any way to denigrate what the libraries are and do - quite the contrary, many of them are the result of significant effort on the part of their community, effort which if it were scaled up to a typical downstate suburban library, would put most of those to shame. I am very impressed by what our libraries accomplish. Twenty-one of the 30 libraries serve populations under 5,000 people. Eleven, or a third of them, have operating budgets of $15,000 or less.
The issue becomes, how does the Library System work in partnership with them to offer a first class library service? I would like to comment on several aspects of your recommendations.
The role of money is crucial, and the changes you are looking for will require more money if, indeed, we want to make them. In my view, the funding of libraries at the local level should be seen as a partnership among local funding, Library System and private funding, and State funding. Your advocacy is essential to achieving greater State funding, and I hope that as I lobby in the future I find that you, the Commission, the Regents, and the Commissioner of Education have preceded and followed me in and out of the offices of the Legislature. We need your help with this.
Budget votes may not be a panacea for smaller, poorer libraries. One of our library boards, that of the Wells Memorial Library in Upper Jay, remarked as follows on funding and votes: "At $20 per capita operating budget, we would need a $40,000 budget, more than even a community-funded budget would support. The rewards [of a vote] can be great….But in a town that does not have a large tax base, or a substantial wealthy summer resident population, the risks are equally large." This is from a library which is highly successful by any measure.
Accountability is important, but it is also important to beware of "one size fits all" solutions. The needs Library Systems serve vary extensively; it seems to me that accountability only can be achieved in terms of each System's Plan of Service. I would recommend that standards and accountability be developed from that perspective. I must say that I am not especially exercised over this issue; in over 20 years of work in New York State libraries I have been well-served by the Systems I have worked with.
Incentive funding is important to do some of the things you are talking about, but be careful of achieving it at the expense of on-going financial support. Costs rise, especially the cost of getting and keeping superior staff.
Our libraries are desperate for construction money.
I am concerned about additional support for urban libraries. Rural areas also have issues and problems which need financial support if they are going to be addressed successfully. I would like to see a measurement of CAPACITY of the tax base as the means to determine need. Enlarging the service area of many of our libraries will not have much of an impact on the amount of money they can raise through taxation because there still will not be much of a tax base. State support for libraries in these communities, rural or urban, is vital.
Again, I would like to thank you for your work and support.
Question from Bill Crumlish: What do you think of recommendation 4, for a need-based formula to reduce disparities
in library funding? Doesn't it cover the needs of the rural areas?
Reply: I am concerned that, in my experience, it is very difficult for the State, for legislators, to really say, ok, you have enough but you don't, so you don't get any money but you do. I don't mean to be pessimistic in the face of all this forward-looking, but I am dubious of this mechanism getting enough money to where it is needed.
As a professional librarian and trustee of a small public library, I want to address recommendation #4. We need to remember the importance of the trustee and trustee education to create quality library service. Trustees need guidance and leadership from both Public Library Systems and from the New York State Library. Although implementation of minimum standards for public libraries had its problems, it has helped tremendously to give the trustees a focus. The NY EXCELL's Program sounds like it has great potential to do the same. But Library Boards need direction to budget adequate funds to staff libraries. Why are the salaries and benefits for support staff so low, even in larger libraries, that staff turnover becomes a constant headache? ? In this age of technology, training new staff is not a simple task. Trustees need to understand the importance of paying decent wages and offering benefits to directors and part time support staff. . They need to budget money to pay staff to attend workshops and training sessions on days when the library is closed, or pay support staff to keep the library open. How many Directors of small libraries actually get paid more than the 20 hours that the library is open? At first glance, lack of funds seems to be the problem. But as libraries find more money for technology and improved library services, salaries continue to be ignored. We need to reinforce the need for quality staff. We need to be able to tell the board of trustees that just keeping ahead of the minimum wage doesn't do it.
Introduction:
The Commission is to be commended on the hard and thoughtful work you have put into developing a vision of library services in New York State in the 2 Is' Century as outlined in the draft report with recommendations.
But, and I am sure you knew there would be a but!
There are some things that are missing that are important and should be included if the final report is to be credible in identifying the information needs of all of the residents of New York and showing how all types of libraries will meet those needs. The report has six policy recommendations. Of these, 3 and 3/4 are related to goals for public libraries, one is a goal for school library media centers, one is a goal for NOVEL and the remaining 1/4 of one is a goal related to linking standards and funding for other types of libraries.
Academic and Special Libraries:
With the heavy emphasis on public libraries, a disappointing omission is any goal that directly addresses the needs of those involved in higher education, health care, the cultural life of the state, and business and industry. In the introduction there are good words like:
Higher education and people's daily work targeted by these good words seem to have been passed over by the Commission. The overall library system in New York includes a wealth of library resources that support people at all stages of their lives.
New York has nearly a million students in higher education, over 300 colleges and universities, over 200 hospitals, who knows how many businesses, farm, factories etc. (over 300 of these enterprises have libraries), but the people involved in these areas have been largely overlooked in the Commission's draft report. While the recommendations related to NOVEL and finding have perhaps a little relevance, I would like to suggest that there be a recommendation that says something to the effect:
Ensure that the research, higher education, health care, cultural, and economic sectors in New York are strengthened through the support of excellent, well-funded library and information programs and services in order for New York to continue its leadership in these vital areas.
Part of the additional wording to go with such a recommendation should note the importance of all types of libraries in working together as part of the continuum of library services that any person in the state will have access to over their lifetime. Public and school libraries do not exist in a vacuum as it might appear from the current report. If the region that I represent is any indication, all types of libraries need and support each other and this should be recognized more. There is a whole library infrastructure out there including academic and special libraries, that needs support if the Commission's belief that every New Yorker in every community across the state should have equitable access to quality library service is to be realized.
It has been suggested that the vital role played by academic and special libraries should be incorporated into the current recommendations. This would make sense but I have tried to do that, and the orientation towards public libraries is so strong that I could not make it work, hence my suggestion for a 7th policy recommendation.
NOVEL:
The recommendation about NOVEL is exciting but I would have wished for something more. The devil is in the details, and it would be useful to have found some wording that indicated a process for delineating what NOVEL will be and what it will take to construct it. NOVEL should not just build on existing networks and complement existing services, i.e., whatever exists at any one time. This is an opportunity to develop a truly great vision of something really terrific but with enough detail to go to funding agencies with the sort of detail and excitement that will allow building NOVEL as a whole. Part of this detail I suggest is some recognition of the infrastructure required to make NOVEL really work: information content, technology, ILL, delivery of materials (electronic or ground), patron identification or authentication, telecommunications, funding, training, and so on.
Funding:
The 1/4 of recommendation #4 that appears to be concerned with types of libraries other than public libraries is tied to developing standards. I hope the word goals or guidelines might be substituted for standards. There are already many such standards for libraries such as college libraries, medical libraries and so forth. One attempt in the last decade to establish guidelines for libraries excluded Cornell University Library on rather technical grounds - this is a library with a great research collection, sophisticated services to its users, a wealth of electronic resources and services, and a great willingness to share its resources. Standards that exclude such a library are not credible. [I] wonder at the wording that suggests incentives be given after meeting standards. What happens to those that for whatever reason can't meet standards? This sort of wording makes me nervous!
None of the existing recommendations or anything I have suggested today can happen without library systems to make them happen. I would like to see a stronger recognition of this in the six supporting recommendations. New York is big enough and complicated enough that both local efforts and statewide efforts all require the coordination, the infrastructure, the regional shared initiatives (this is way more than traditional ILL), the cooperation, and the promotion of libraries by the various library systems in the state.
Thank you for your time today.
Good afternoon, my name is Sara Dallas. I am the Interim Director of the Upper Hudson Library System. Upper
Hudson is a cooperative public library system in Albany, NY. We provide library services and programs to the public
and public libraries located in Albany and Rensselaer Counties.
I would like to address Recommendation 6: Improve the capacity of New York’s urban public libraries to meet the unique needs of their diverse, densely populated communities. Urban is defined by Webster as "of, relating to, or constituting a city. Characteristic of the city or city life".
It is my hope that all libraries located in urban centers are included in this proposition. Please allow me to share some information about some of the city libraries that are located within an hour and a half drive from this building. Imagine, if you would, a map of New York State – and the New York State Thruway – which I am sure you have become very familiar with during the course of this project. These urban areas include but are not limited to:
1Minimum hours needed to be open per NYS minimum standards
City Population Min. hours open1 Free lunch2 Albany 100,031 60 99.44% Amsterdam 20,714 40 64.61% Gloversville 6,979 35 81.42% Johnstown 3,714 25 82.32% Kingston 9,446 35 92.44% Newburgh 9,029 35 82.09% Poughkeepsie 11,834 35 89% Rensselaer 3,449 25 74.49% Rome 15,669 40 81.99% Troy 20,708 40 91.33% Utica 28,280 55 96.53% Watervliet 4,889 25 67.32% 234,742 450
2Free lunch taken from NYS Dept of Ed Child Nutrition Reimbursement Unit. This number is the highest number reported for the school district.
Financial incentives are needed in these areas to better serve their diverse populations and to expand the current level of Coordinated Outreach Services to Special Populations. The percentages of children receiving free lunches in these cities range from 65% to 99.44% depending upon where the individual school is located in each community.
The patterns found in the urban downstate areas are mirrored here as well. People visit their local library to access the Internet and use computers. People use the local library to meet their educational, informational and reading needs. People who live in these cities have unique and diverse needs. Let me share some examples with you.
My name is Harry Dutcher, and I am the Director of the Saratoga Springs Public Library. I want to first thank the Commission for their work on these difficult issues so far. I also have two very brief comments I would like to make regarding the establishment and funding of our public libraries:
Thank you very much for my time. I look forward to seeing you at the New York Library Association this fall in Saratoga Springs, and I encourage each of you to visit our library. Tell them Harry sent you.
My main concern is the crucial importance of keeping and preserving the originals of materials which are digitized. The assumption often seems to be that, once something is digitized, a nice new copy has been created which takes the place of the original copy. Many people assume that digitization is a means of preserving endangered materials. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In the first place, having access to digitized copies often only whets the researcher's appetite: it may confirm for him that he does indeed want to see the original, and it may also confirm that he wants to see more of the materials from the same collection--in the original. In other words, digitization actually advertises the existence and nature of collections and increases the demand to use them. Far from protecting the originals by decreasing use, digitization often increases use. Therefore it is doubly important to take measures as early as possible to preserve the originals: to store them correctly, to encapsulate them or put them into protective boxes, to repair them if necessary, so that they are protected from damage--protected if possible before use increases.
In the second place, digitization has the capability to make "good" copies: to manipulated the image so that contrast is improved, flaws and damage are erased, etc. In other words, it can create an improved image which is easier to read, nicer to look at, but has lost information having to do with its history. There are both scholarly and legal ramifications to this potential to "improve" originals. The original, which is the historical and legal "official" version, becomes more important than ever in the face of the potential to produce credible, but altered, copies.
Because digitization increases the importance of preservation of originals, no large-scale digitization project
should be launched
without the inclusion of funding for preservation, to be done if possible before digitization. If preservation
is not funded and
undertaken along with digitization, it will almost surely be postponed indefinitely and forgotten until it is too
late. Librarians and
conservators who are knowledgeable about the need for preservation in conjunction with digitization must be included
from the earliest stages of planning and consultation for digitization. Administrators and legislators who are
involved in the proposed electronic library must be well informed about not only the potential but also the limitations
of digitization. It is not a preservation medium. It facilitates access to materials, but as far as preservation
goes, it is, if anything, actually a threat rather than a means to preserve. Everyone who cares about the future
of libraries and library services in New York needs to understand how digitization and preservation can and must
complement each other, and are equally necessary in serving the public's needs.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony. My name is Philip B. Eppard, and I am the dean of the School of Information Science and Policy of the University at Albany. I am speaking to you today, however, not as a library educator, but rather as the president of the Friends of the New York State Library, a volunteer, not-for profit organization that seeks to promote awareness of and concern for the New York State Library. The Friends group is made up largely of people who are users of the State Library, and therefore we are keenly aware of not only its enormous value to the state and to the nation, but also of its pressing needs.
Let me commend the Commission's work in setting forth the six recommendations designed to ensure that all New Yorkers have access to quality library services. I am pleased also to note that your twelfth recommendation addresses in particular the role of the New York State Library as an important element in contributing to the infrastructure that will enable the implementation of the first six of your recommendations. The State Library should indeed be viewed as an essential linchpin in the effort to meet this broad goal of providing quality library service for all New Yorkers.
There are three particular aspects of the State Library's operations that I wish to highlight in my brief testimony today.
Increased funding is needed for acquisition of new materials for the State Library.
The New York State Library is one of the great research libraries in the United States, and yet it is finding it increasingly difficult to maintain that status because of cuts in the acquisitions budget for the past several years. Current publications in recognized fields of strength are not always acquired, and journal subscriptions are being canceled. Acquisition of electronic resources is an expensive proposition, and all research libraries are struggling with the problem of how to determine the proper balance in their acquisition budgets between print and electronic resources. Nevertheless, it is clear that great research libraries continue to need to build both kinds of collections. An increase of $250,000 per year in the library's acquisitions budget for books and journals is necessary just to keep pace with the inflationary price increases in library materials. Substantially larger increases in funds for acquisitions will be needed to allow the library to regain ground lost to several years of budget cuts. The New York State Library collections play an invaluable role in providing books to other libraries across the state through interlibrary loan, and so it is essential for the library to maintain the strongest collections possible for access and use by all the citizens of New York State.
The New York State Library needs to be able to improve access to its collections by extending its hours.
The rich resources of the New York State Library are only available for on-site use from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. The effect of these limited hours is to restrict access to the collections. While it might seem that increased access to electronic information would make onsite use of collections less necessary, in fact the opposite is true. Wide dissemination of information about the holdings of the State Library through Excelsior, the online catalog, only serves to generate greater interest in the collections and thereby increases demand for onsite use. Access to other bibliographic databases has the same effect. Furthermore, it should be remembered that the New York State Library is a research library, and therefore it must meet the needs of a variety of users with extended projects, and many of these individuals are unable to get to the library for any length of time during the normal working week. Funding is sorely needed to allow the library to be open weekends and some evenings during the week.
The New York State Library needs additional staff in both the Research Library and the Library Development Division.
Users of the Research Library need assistance from an expert staff to facilitate their use of the collections. High quality reference services are essential if the users of the library are going to receive maximum benefit from these great collections and thereby insure that the larger community is best served by their work. The work carried out by the Library Development Division has a tremendous impact across the state. Any statewide plan to improve library services as a whole will need the kind of professional expertise and technical assistance that only the State Library can provide to the whole library community in New York State. Replacement of staff lost over the last several years is essential to provide all of these services.
The Regents Commission on Library Services has set lofty goals for improving library services across New York State, and it has clearly highlighted the New York State Library as an essential institution to provide support for libraries throughout the state. The Friends of the New York State Library applaud this recognition. It is easy, however, to take the New York State Library for granted. It is such a familiar presence that it can be easily overlooked, to the detriment of its vital role as a major research library and as a resource for all of the libraries in the state. As dedicated supporters of the State Library, the Friends encourage the Commission to support our efforts to widen the impact of the New York State Library by embracing the three essential areas of increased acquisitions, increased hours of access, and increased staff support for all aspects of the library's work.
It is difficult to offer detailed comment on the draft recommendations of the Commission; the tone is almost exclusively "more, better, faster, and throw a lot of money at it." While no one could argue with the sentiment behind any of the twelve recommendations, the devil is in the details, and I reserve my right to bang my shoe and throw a temper tantrum when the details emerge in the final report.
At this time, I would like to offer some comments on only two of the recommendations.
The recommendation to form public library districts is very important, and history shows that the model you propose almost always leads to better funding and better service. However, I come from a part of the State where the self-perpetuating association library board is the norm, and many of my constituents are already reacting to this recommendation with concern, fear, doubt, and suspicion. Much elaboration on three parts of this recommendation in the final report will help a lot. First, that there is extensive real-world evidence that this model improves service. Second, a resurrection of the idea of financial incentives for the change to district status -- which was discussed extensively in the past but is entirely left out of the draft. Third, that the transition to special district status, although encouraged, is voluntary.
Recommendation #6 to strengthen urban libraries seems well-intended but excessively narrow in its focus, since the implication is that it is directed at our very largest libraries. Yet my office is located in a city of 60,000 with a 25% poverty level in which there are 22 different native languages spoken in the school system. In addition, more than 60% of the real property is tax exempt. The people of Utica need "urban library support" as much as those in Brooklyn.
On the other hand, it is often more difficult to reach and provide library service to the rural poor. They usually have no transportation network, nor do they benefit from the more extensive social services infrastructure that is available in an urban setting. People live in trailers and the back seats of junk cars out in the country too. Don't forget about them.
In closing -- give us details, please! I know a tremendous amount of background research has been done for the Commission; the final report will be greatly strengthened by its inclusion.
And good luck.
My name is Michael O'Connor and I am the director of the Southern Adirondack Library System based in Saratoga Springs, serving urban, suburban, and rural public libraries. I have served public libraries and public library systems in New York state for 26 years.
By way of re-iteration, I enclose my June 3, 1999 testimony before you encouraging you to seek a provision in the constitution of the state of New York to guarantee equal access to public library services on the same foundation as the guarantee for elementary and secondary education as embodied in the enclosed Assembly Bill 1641 and Senate Bill 1482.
We applaud the efforts of the Commission and we hope at the same time that any revisions to your draft recommendations will include a greater emphasis on the funding of public library systems, a critical area neglected in the current draft. Basic formula state aid for public library systems last saw an authorization for increases eleven years ago and appropriations did not follow for many years thereafter.
As a child of the state we are the victims of child abuse by the state. All of the admirable and lofty ideals of the Commission's recommendations will be subverted if the fundamental purposes of our service programs for our member libraries and the public continue to erode because of this negligence.
Thank you, Commission members, for giving me the opportunity to speak.
My name is Rosemary Palmquist. I've been a public, university and elementary school librarian for twenty-eight years, the past fifteen of which I've been a library media specialist.
"Excelsior!" Ever upward! What an inspiring motto for our state and for our students especially when students are expected to reach higher standards in reading and critical thinking skills. When I first learned of the Regents' efforts to address the needs of elementary school library programs I was thrilled. At last -- "Ever upward!" applied to elementary school library media programs and to librarians, the local experts in delivery of library and information services.
We are often the only K-8 librarians in our school or District and thus the sole professional who promotes improving the library program. I've been excited and hopeful for the future of elementary school libraries since reading the Kadamus Report and learning of various library initiatives and proposals.
My students are among the luckier in our state. They have a library and a certified library media specialist. They have progressive administrators who understand the importance of library programs. Many schools *in our state have lack these basics.
But my district has few resources to support the library program. I'm the library media specialist for 850 elementary students. One teacher aide comes to the library two hours a day three or four times a week to shelve books or help with the overflow at the Circulation Desk.
Every day of every week of the school year the library is assigned eight 30-minute classes or 40 classes per week. Class size ranges up to 37. I see over a thousand students per week. These weekly library visits provide a weekly planning period for teachers while I have their classes. Students have little access to the library other than during their scheduled class. Because my day is scheduled into classes, students have little access to the library other than their weekly visit. The Media Center is closed during my lunch and daily planning break.
There is no room for small, independent groups or opportunity teachers to work collaboratively in the library with their classes and me. Due to lack of space in the elementary building, a chunk of the Media Center now serves as offices and a small group instruction area for reading teachers.
The library has a permanent collection of about 5,000 books, barely 6 books per student. Book circulation is 18,900 - 23,000 books per year which is very high. An equal number of books, mostly reference materials and periodicals, circulate within the library. The wear and tear on books is tremendous. The permanent collection is becoming a consumable.
The student population is more mobile today. I've seen an increase in lost books and books lost when students move.
The school district has no local funds for elementary library materials. The library materials budget is $5.00 per student, reimbursed by state aid. This won't purchase even one book per year per student.
In the past two years I've been able to order the equivalent of 3/4ths of one book per student per academic year only because Federal funds kick in an additional $3.50 per year per student. The lack of funds is unfortunate when more than ever teachers look to the library for resources to support their work. With a new reading program, higher standards for reading, and required daily silent sustained reading, demand for books is up. Students need more relevant and up-to-date books. For example, our newest encyclopedia is seven years old.
While classroom teachers can supplement resources with those available through the Internet, the library cannot. The library has no Internet access, no telephone, just a single outdated stand-alone computer with no modem.
When I come to school each morning I think back to my own elementary school days. With the exception of a VCR replacing the film strip projector, there is no difference between my childhood school library and the library I seek to improve. I'm frustrated because the library program remains at the "in progress" stage year after year with no hope for change.
This isn't for lack of vision on the part of the community, the School Board or administrators. These groups are knowledgeable and have high aspirations for students. They are familiar with elementary library programs in other communities and they'd like to have an equal shot at providing a competitive program of their own.
It's simply that the tax base is very limited. The local budget is so tight that there isn't enough money to participate in even State-aided programs. Isn't this a shame? That a district in need can't afford State aid?
The library program is on the line every year. No wonder it's always "in process." How do you add on to a building which is always threatened with being demolished? How to you promote improvements when told a library program isn't required?
I'm looking to the Commission members to make a difference. I believe that these watered-down recommendations won't translate into results. Mandates are essential for the future success of elementary library programs.
Mandate quality and our students will move "Ever upward!"
Thank you Members of the Regents Commission for the many excellent recommendations brought forth to improve libraries in New York State. The proposal closest to my heart is your objective to link information-literate students with strong school library media programs that include appropriately certified professional staff, adequate resources and technology. Recent studies in Alaska, Colorado and Pennsylvania have clearly demonstrated the effectiveness of school libraries on our students' academic performance and support your proposal.
Urban districts such as mine are always limited in resources, staffing and technology. In my district, library media specialists work tirelessly to meet the increasing information needs of their students and staff with budgets that fail to provide for even one book per student. After a concerted effort using a myriad of funding sources, we have achieved the minimum standard of 15 books per pupil in only 58% of our district libraries. It will take a little more than a half a million dollars to bring the remaining libraries up to minimum standards. Those libraries that can offer more than the basic level of resources are often filled with books that are out-dated. The average collection age in some of our schools is an embarrassment with more than 56% of the library books published prior to 1981.
The district's recent move to building-based budgeting has placed us in a precarious position; in the past, we squeaked by each year with minimum, but consistent funding. Now we are at the mercy of a building budget where the librarian is often a lone voice competing with 60 or more classroom teachers. Without a dedicated library budget line, it is not surprising that all district library budgets for next year have been reduced from last year. I fear that the costly lesson on the effect of site-based budgets learned in Philadelphia's school libraries will have to be repeated in Albany before we can regain the toehold that we now have. Your proposal for adequate resources could not come at a more opportune time.
There have been no professional staffing increases since 1994/95 despite a 16% increased enrollment district-wide. Clerical assistance is non-existent at the elementary level forcing the library media specialist to make decisions about whether to shelve the books so that she can function effectively with 37+ classes that week or spend the time collaborating with her colleagues for a more integrated delivery of service.
Technology is slowly making inroads into our library media centers, however, it is often too little, too old and too slow to meet the demands of our actively engaged students. My high school Media Center can only provide 5 Internet accessible computers for more than 2200 students. Online databases that are needed for student research are costly and consume a large part of the book budget. I hesitate to acknowledge that the unethical use of Albany Public Library's Full-text Magazine database was actually considered as a solution to our budget problems.
I was somewhat disappointed that the Commission did not take up the challenge to mandate elementary library media specialists but I understand the expediency of such actions. While it is essential that schools understand the need for vibrant library programs and what resources are needed to function efficiently and effectively; it is our responsibility as professional school library media specialists to demonstrate that we are the persons best trained and experienced in delivering this unique service. Your recommendation coupled with the State Aid Proposal for the 2000-01 School Year might just open the back door for school library programs (a technique that has been long employed by librarians of all types). However, it is important to remind you that some school districts, especially those plagued by fiscal constraints and a lack of vision regarding school libraries will continue to reduce non-mandated positions unless there are penalties or repercussions in response to such actions.
Please don't repeat the over sights of the past. When elementary libraries were required but without specific staffing needs as at the secondary level, it was assumed that schools couldn't run a library without an elementary school librarian. Well, we've seen how this has been addressed in far too many urban districts. Calling for 'strong school library programs' without consequences for those who fail to meet this requirement only opens the door for districts to develop 'creative solutions' to circumvent the intentions of the Board of Regents.
In conclusion, I would again like to relay my thanks and support for your proposal regarding school libraries. School libraries in urban districts have too long been regarded as superfluous and a drain on school funds. Years of minimum resources, staffing and fixed scheduling have established a climate that the school library cannot meet the needs of our students. Valiant efforts have demonstrated otherwise, but we cannot do it alone. We need dedicated and consistent funding, adequate staff and administrative support that validates the impact that school libraries make on student achievement. We do not duplicate public library services and cannot be replaced by them despite the 'best' intentions of school and public administration trying to reduce costs. Rather, school libraries play a unique role in the educational career of our students. We teach students more than just how to locate information, but how to use it efficiently and effectively and how to evaluate the currency and validity of such knowledge. In short, we give our young people the strategies and skills that they will need to succeed in an increasingly competitive and information-rich society.
Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts with you today.
The Regents Commission on Library Services March 2000 Draft needs to recognize the unique needs of babies, toddlers and preschoolers and their families in libraries, ensuring that every child enters school ready to learn.
While the Draft document proposes measures to ensure that all New York's public school students are information-literate, babies, toddlers and preschoolers are not in public schools.
Many public libraries provide vital services to babies, toddlers, preschoolers, and their caregivers. Programming that encourages families to learn together, and activities fostering socialization and pre-literacy skills are frequently the only resources available to these individuals without cost. Libraries have been in the forefront of providing support to parents, and must continue to do so.
Young children receive a first exposure to language and books, creating an early appreciation for literature, reading and the library. For many, the library provides their first opportunity to relate to their peers at story time programs and to learn of other cultures. Pre-literacy skills preparing children to succeed in school are increased through library-sponsored activities.
The Regents Commission Plan needs to recognize the needs of young children and their families in addition to those of school-age children.
I commend the members of the Regents Commission on Library Services for their work in taking the vast amount of information received from library stakeholders over the last several months and developing it into a coherent program designed to improve library service to the people of the State of New York. The goals as stated are important ones and would, if implemented, go a long way toward improving library services throughout the state.
I am concerned, however, about some elements that are missing. Chief among those, from my perspective, is the research community of the state. These are the people who teach in our colleges and universities. They do product development and basic research in the established corporations our cities and counties are working so hard to keep in the state. They save lives by developing new medical treatments. They are the entrepreneurs in the start-up firms to which other parts of government are offering tax incentives to encourage them to locate in their areas. They are inventors in basements who do their inventing evenings and weekends when they come home from other jobs. Where do these people turn for information which their own organizations cannot provide? The vast majority of the public libraries in the state cannot support these needs, nor should they be expected to. They turn, then, to established academic and special libraries, both large and small.
Quite frankly, a number of academic and special librarians I know have been quite reluctant to participate in the Regents Commission processes. They feel that, in many cases, their libraries have the resources that are to be mined by those with needs, but that academic and special libraries will not be getting anything back for their contributions. They feel that the public libraries and the school libraries are the only libraries the Commission is concerned about, and that the needs, interests, and perspectives of academic and special libraries do not count for much in your deliberations. For them, the preliminary recommendation document in many respects confirms those feelings.
Obviously, academic and special libraries have not been entirely left out. The draft plan mentions academic and special libraries, and many of them, by implication, would be included in parts of NOVEL. However, we find no explicit statements related to academic or special libraries or support for the research community. Where is the affirmation of the importance of information literacy programs in higher education or support for those efforts? We find no bold statement offering electronic resources to all libraries, including for-profits. (Despite the fact that other parts of government are offering tax breaks to encourage many companies, for-profits have thus far been excluded from database contracts and will doubtless continue to be unless New York State takes a firm stand on this matter.) I would further suggest the specific inclusion of research-level electronic resources in the NOVEL proposal, as this would demonstrate support for economic development, science, technology, and business as well as higher education. How about adding incentives to New York's academic libraries and hospital and health-science libraries to open their doors to direct access by all New Yorkers? Increased funding under the current Coordinated Collection Development (CCD) program is another addition I would make. Such funding could build on existing collection strengths and allow the CCD program to expand to include electronic resources.
All of these suggestions could be part of an additional goal: Ensure that the higher education and research communities are an integral part of the library community in New York State.
Including statements such as those I mentioned above would assure academic and special libraries that they are, indeed, a valued part of the whole library structure in New York State -- with resources that are to be encouraged and nurtured, not just used. This would build on strengths that already exist while setting the stage for further cooperative efforts between our library communities.
Good afternoon. I am Fred Smith of Chazy, New York, a small Clinton County village of 500 residents located seven miles south of the Canadian border.
I speak with you today as a Trustee and Treasurer of the Chazy Public Library and as Vice President and Chair of the Finance Committee of the Clinton-Essex-Franklin Library System. Prior to my retirement in 1994, 1 served as the Vice President for Academic Affairs at two different SUNY two-year colleges with responsibility, at both colleges, for learning resource centers. My post-retirement, second career finds me serving as the Director/Curator of the Alice T. Miner Museum, a classic colonial revival house museum.
This afternoon I hope to leave you with a better understanding, than you already may have, of small libraries-their strengths, their -limitations, their issues, their concerns and the challenges imposed by standards and visions. The Chazy Public Library is very typical of most of the 35 libraries in the three counties served by our Library System. I also suspect that the small Chazy Library is typical of many libraries in the other more rural areas of New York State.
The Chazy Public Library is a school district library in a district with a total population of 2,777. Our taxpayers have a voice in the governance and funding of their library through an annual public vote on the library budget and selection of trustees.
The Chazy Public Library is housed in a charming, limestone structure built in 1811 and occupied by the library since 1901, the same year the library was chartered by the Board of Regents. The library has historic significance. Both British and American troops occupied the building at different times during the War of 1812. For years following the war, it was a law office. At a grand cost of $279.08, the building was converted to a library with shelving for 700 books. The library became the first Clinton County library outside of Plattsburgh to pay its librarian. So much for history...
Our library space is small. How small is small? We work with 515 square feet of space housing the collection and the librarian's desk/work station. A second floor area houses a bathroom and storage area. There are no meeting rooms or areas for programming. There are no worktables for study. There are no true reading areas. Shelf space is limited. While the building is charming, it is not without its structural problems. Two-foot thick stone walls pose a real challenge. Outdated wiring currently poses an even greater problem.
Smallness extends to finances. In the current fiscal year, we operate on a budget of $19,000, $14,100 of which comes from taxpayers; the rest comes from system grants, donations, fines and fund raising. Our librarian's salary is $7,500 a year, a salary that equates to $7.21 per hour based solely on the hours that the library is open. Based on the hours actually worked by the dedicated librarian, I dare say she is earning less than $6 per hour. Book purchases do not represent a burdensome task for the librarian. One doesn't need great amounts of time to order $2,000 worth of books. The remainder of our budget is given to essentials-insurance, utilities, and supplies. Believe me when I tell you there is no fat in the budget, When our copying machine died last year, trustees and the librarian donated $500 toward the purchase of a new copier. The recent acquisition of a $150 fax machine represented a major purchase. This July we will finally be in a financial position to meet the State standard for open hours.
Taxpayer support of the library has increased nearly threefold in the last nine years. In the last three years, support has gone from $8,000 a year to $14, 100, or a 76% increase. At $14,100, taxpayers in the school district are paying 11 cents per $ 1,000 of assessed valuation. A taxpayer with a $100,000 home -- and there are few -- is paying $11 to support the library. The increase in support has been accomplished by "selling" the library to the community. Trustees, satisfied patrons, and our amazing librarian have all played a role. I should also note that we feel we have gained by separating our vote on the budget from the school vote on its budget; votes take place on separate dates. We learned this lesson when a negative school vote led to a negative vote on library propositions. For many it is difficult to make the distinction between the public library and a school budget that funds a school library.
And now I turn our attention to the smallness of the library collection, Just over 5,000 cataloged books comprise the collection. Four magazines comprise the periodical section. There are no newspapers. A small collection of used videos has been donated. How in the world does such an operation provide quality service? Quite simply it could not be done without the support and services of the Clinton-Essex-Franklin Library System and the Central Library in Plattsburgh.
By now you can guess the types of issues faced by the Chazy Library.
Do we support the policy recommendations you propose? It would be very difficult to argue against equitable access to quality library service. It would be difficult to argue against funding for library construction, expansion and renovation. It would be equally difficult to argue against a virtual electronic library. It would be difficult to argue against a program to ensure that all public school students are information literate. We applaud the intent. And then there is the reality of the vision.
Think about the small library picture I have described. It will take time -- a great deal of time. It will take funding -- a great deal of funding. More than ever it will take the support and services of central libraries and library systems. Give us all of that and we will make the vision a reality.
Updated 9/11/2000 -- asm