|
Date: |
Thu, 9 Aug 2007
17:49:28 -0700 (PDT) |
|
From: |
"Glenn A.
Walsh" <carnegiefreelibrary@yahoo.com> |
|
Subject: |
Comments: Olszak Report |
|
To: |
"Lisa M. Olszak" <lolszak@olszak.com> |
|
CC: |
"Glenn A.
Walsh" <gawalsh@andrewcarnegie.cc> |
To: Lisa Olszak
From: Glenn A. Walsh
The following are some comments from reading your
report's
recommendations:
* Formula Development Process: I agree that a new
formula development
process, completely member-driven,
should be
implemented. I agree the length of time
seems adequate. I
also agree that a consultant, rather
than the current
ACLA management, should run such a
process; this would
give the process greater
credibility.
However, I do caution that there should be no
implication that
the formula must be complex, simply
because all of this
time is being spent on the
process. Often the simplist answers are the most
equitable.
* Overarching Organizational Issues - I VERY MUCH
agree that time
should be spent resolving critical
overarching
organizational issues, including mission
and purpose. As
I mentioned in my public hearing
statement, the
beginning of ACLA was rushed [to become
eligible for RAD
funding] and often only included
library directors
from the larger libraies in the more
affluent communities
[because the library directors
from the smaller
libraries had to continue operating
their libraries
and could not delegate their tasks
while they went
off to "play ACLA."].
* State Funding - I agree that State funding should be
removed from the
ACLA formula. The State has their own
criteria for
funding, which should be respected.
* Materials Expenditures - Using materials
expenditures as
one of the baseline criteria still
creates the problem
of rich libraries versus poor
libraries.
Rich libraries can easily outspend poor
libraries--does
this mean that rich libraries should
receive more RAD
funds? I say no!
In the vast majority of cases, poor libraries would
gladly spend as
much on materials as rich libraries,
if they had
the money available to do so! Often, the
ability to spend
money on materials is not under the
control of the library.
This is determined by the
wealth, or lack
of, of the municipality or
municipalities, in their service area, contributing to
the library.
If a criterion at all, it should have very little
weight in the
entire forumula--just weight enough that
a certain
minimum expenditure is expected each year.
* Performance Incentives - Performance incentives are
all well and
good. But, again, in many cases the
library has no
control over their "performance." The
amount of local
funding they receive often limits
their
performance. I do not agree that libraries
should be judged
on something over which they have no
control.
Now, you do mention some items over which the library
may have some
control. However, you must realize that
after a certain
length of time, no matter how hard the
library tries, they
will likely hit "the law of
diminishing
returns." This would be particularly true
in western
growth--or
worse--are losing industry, jobs, and
population--again,
problems that are beyond the
control of the
local library. These are just the
libraries that
do need funding, yet depending on how
the performance
measures are calculated, they could be
inelegible for performance measure funding.
* Entitlements - You state that libraries should
realize that
performance measures funding should not
be considered
an entitlement. SAYS WHO?
Who has already decided that a certain percentage of
the RAD funds
should be allocated in a way that is not
an
entitlement? This is taxpayer money that is quite
limited. It needs
to be allocated in such a way to
provide a maximum
of library service in Allegheny
County--and, one of the factors is the continuation of
a maximum
number of library locations, as is
financially
feasible.
Up until now, about 45 libraries in
along with some
branch libraries, have been considered
feasible. Anything
that would reduce that number is
suspect--because,
it would benefit the remaining
libraries with
additional RAD funds!
* Floor and Ceiling Limits - Although I agree that
these limits may
be a good idea, I still question
whether a formula
is too complex and inequitable if
such limits are
actually needed. Once an equitable
funding
distribution is determined, there should not
be huge
fluctuations, from one year to another, for
any particular
library.
* Collaborative Incentive - The proposed Collaborative
Incentive seems to me to simply add another layer of
bureaucracy for
grant review and awarding. It might be
simpler to use the
collaborative process already in
place--the ACLA
suburban regions. Allocate an equal
amount of
collaborative funding, each year, to each
suburban library
region. Collaborative programs
proposed by each
region could be approved each year by
the ACLA Board.
* Public Input on Formula Committee - Again, as I
mentioned at
the ACLA meeting, due to the fact that
the
distribution deals with taxpayer money, one member
of the general
public from each region should be
included in the
formula committee.
gaw
Glenn A. Walsh
Electronic Mail - < gawalsh@planetarium.cc
>
SPACE & SCIENCE NEWS, ASTRONOMICAL CALENDAR:
< http://buhlplanetarium.tripod.com/#news
>
Author of History Web Sites on the Internet --
* Andrew Carnegie & Carnegie Libraries:
< http://andrewcarnegie.tripod.com
>
* Astronomer, Educator, Optician John A. Brashear:
< http://johnbrashear.tripod.com
>
* Buhl Planetarium,
< http://buhlplanetarium.tripod.com
>
* Adler Planetarium, Chicago:
< http://adlerplanetarium.tripod.com
>
* Duquesne Incline cable-car railway,
< http://incline.pghfree.net
>
* Public Transit: