Seavey's article "Public Libraries," yes, very creative title, focuses on the evolution of library funding and structure (not physical structure but system structure) in multiple countries such as the United States, UK and China. As he says, in both countries, "Trends in population, economy, and political and social reform lead to the emergence of public libraries in the middle of the 19th century." While speaking of the development of library funding, he talks of subscription based libraries in which people had to pay a fee to belong and also talks of circulating libraries in which individual books or small collections could be rented out for a fee. Later he goes on to explain how statewide government legislation eventually allowed local governments to establish taxes to fund public libraries and this ultimately evolved into the funding systems we have in place today.
The original funding plans which the social and circulation libraries operated under, failed because:
1.) They both had limitations on how many people they could reach with their library services due to both lack of locations outside of large cities and class discrimination because only people with a good amount of disposable income could use the library.
2.) Financially they were both based on direct payment from the readers who, in times of economic trouble, were unable to provide a steady stream of $ for the libraries.
What I want to ask is: Despite their downfalls, is it possible these early funding systems had a good idea? With the lack of funding given to public libraries today, is it too much to ask for library users to give something in return? Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe libraries should be solely for upper-class elites, but what exactly IS the role of a library: should it be to educate the people looking for education who probably have the money to do so, or is it more to educate people who don't have the means to educate themselves otherwise and probably also don't have the money to pay for using the library?
There are very few things in the world today that remain ‘free.’ Should the library be one of them?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Although budget cuts are certainly an issue, the idea of charging for materials seems like it would be turning our back on the values that have been established and been in place for centuries. I don't believe that we should be constantly glorifying ourselves and our mission (whether in our history or in our current state), but there is something amazing and worthwhile about not charging for any of our resources.
So many in our field are constantly worried that the role of the library is being downgraded. People talk about how people don't read anymore and that libraries are a place for people to check their email and the majority of budgets is spent on CDs and DVDs and fluffy popular fiction and so on and so forth. However, if we begin charging people for DVDs and other materials, then we're basically nothing more than a Blockbuster.
It's frustrating to be facing these issues but professionals in the field have faced huge issues throughout history (huh, we'll probably be learning about them soon!) and the most we can do is learn from history and be inovative for the future.
I am so tired of hearing librarians (and fellow SLIS students) complain about budget cuts. I agree that money is a real issue but when are librarians going to start functioning and participating in the corporate world of 2006? Libraries spend millions perhaps billions of dollars a year and yet have not begun to cut deals with companies. Why haven't public libraries proposed business deals with Coca-Cola in which for a certain fee libraries will only have Coke Vending Machines for example? Why haven't libraries cut large deals with computer companies in which for a discounted price on PCs a state library system will only purchase computers from that company? Of course business deals need to be controlled so that libraries do not limit their collections and continue to collect a range of materials but I can't imagine that patrons would complain about Coke over Pepsi or Dell over Compaq.
Not to make this too long of a blog, but to add another point why haven't libraries gotten together for large fundraising events? Charity balls and the like are well attended by philanthropists who are willing to spend thousands of dollars a plate to support public institutions. There are tons of way libraries can raise money by teaming up with corporations as well. What about a book show (whatever type of collection)? Companies can sponser a display or advertising (etc.) while the library brings in more money and more public attention.
Rather than seeing librarians sit around and complain about small budgets I would rather see a more corporate attitude to fundraising which will only increase budgets and the libraries' waning visibility. In a consumer world it is necessary librarians participate or they will be left behind.
I just read a summary of the 2003 OCLC Environmental Scan for another class and came across some relevant information. User fees generally comprise less than 5% of library funding. So in the grand scheme of library funding, user fees and fines are virtually a non-issue.
On the other hand, public funding (that means tax dollars paid by businesses and individuals at the city, state and federal level) makes up around 87% of library budgets.
To me, the legislation that made possible public funding (taxes) for libraries is fascinating. Seavey only devotes a couple of paragraphs to it and the Boston Public Library. I would like to know more about the political and economic climates and public opinions that made the legislation pass.
Post a Comment