The third meeting of the Committee of 11 met on August 18th to revise the model, creating Design 1, and voted unanimously to support it. The studio audience also voted 98% in favor of the plan. This has been placed on the ILA website (Model, FAQ, Talking Points, Financials) and for additional comments by the Iowa Library Community. Small changes will be made by the Committee of 11 based on forthcoming blog comments, and this completed design will become Design 2, which we in the Iowa Library Community will need to rally behind and support.
(click on the model above to download PDF version)
As can be seen by viewing the design model, there is a new state agency, Iowa Library Services, that blends the former State Library of Iowa and the Library Service Areas. Satellite offices will still exist to provide direct training and assistance to libraries throughout the state. Other services will be streamlined and centralized. Per the legislative directive for less boards, the LSA boards will be eliminated when library services are consolidated. More information on how this will all work can be found in the Frequently Asked Questions created to go with the model. It is anticipated that the ILA Governmental Affairs Committee (GAC) will recommend the passage of Design 2 as part of its proposed 2011 Legislative Agenda, which will then be voted on by the ILA membership at the October 2010 Annual Conference in Coralville and approved by the ILA Executive Board. The plan is to send the final proposal to legislators just after the ILA Annual Conference, in mid-October.
Notes on commenting:
- Every blogger needs to sign his or her name to their comments and also list the library he/she is employed at, if a library employee, or the local library supported, if you are a library patron. This allows us to respond and follow up more effectively.
- Your thoughtful comments are greatly appreciated, as we tweak this final design.
I would like to propose an alternative model to the one presented here. I'm afraid I don't have the prowess to figure out how to devise a chart like the one above, but I think you'll see what I'm proposing. Here it is:
ReplyDeleteAnother Model of Reorganization
• Representative Board of Directors
• Nine Members, 2 ex-Officios, State Librarian and one Senior Consultant
• Each Service Area would have 1 representative
• 1 member representing AEA
• 1 member representing Academic libraries
• 1 member representing State Library
State Librarian Team
• State Librarian 1 FTE
• Support Staff 1 FTE
• Bookkeeper 1 FTE
Library Service Areas Boards of Trustees
• 7 member Boards
• 3 Library Staff
• 2 Library Trustees
• 1 AEA representative
• 1 Community College representative
Library Service Areas Team
• Six area locations
• 2.5 FTE in each location, 15 FTE Total
• Senior Consultant 1 FTE
• Combination of consultant/contract staff/support staff 1.5 FTE
• Responsible for all CE and consulting for Public Libraries
• Responsible for Youth Services program
• Responsible for Early Childhood Literacy program
• Continuation of NEIBORS and WILBOR
• Responsible for statewide Public Library ILL backup
• Coordination of statewide E-rate consortium/joint filing services
• Development of new director mentoring program
• State Library Services Team
• Coordination of State Statistics program
• Coordination of State Library Accreditation program
• Coordination of Statewide Certification program
• Coordination of Database delivery system
• Coordination of State LSTA grant program
• Coordination of Study committee to create new model of Library Districts
Coordination and operation of SILO
Management of State Library Dept. Library
Management of State Law Library
Library Service Areas would keep their representative local boards of seven members, which would meet 6 times a year, 2 times in person and remaining meetings held electronically
The possibility of streamlining both the accounting and auditing processes would be further studied to see if either would be legally feasible and provide significant cost savings
State Library would re-allocate funding dollars currently spent on direct programs and services provided to libraries for Continuing Education, Consulting, and Youth Services to the LSAs to carry out those programs, services and to contract with appropriate personnel to provide training, consulting and educational opportunities
There would be no duplication of services in this model
The above plan proposed sounds like it is much easier managed and is closer to what I would be striving for as a director without duplication of service and continuation of the support that we currently receive.
ReplyDeleteAngie Kintzle
Director Swea City
I agree. This proposal maintains the services and local connections and support that we value. My board of trustees is very opposed to the loss of local control and the elimination of service area boards. My local legislators are not supportive of the elimination of local boards and were a bit surprised that it was in the reorganization model presented at the town meeting. I do support the continued excellent service we know and value - and the concept that all libraries across the state should have access to these services.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the time given by those serving on this committee, but I question the actual directive they were given by the legislature. Reducing expenses was the only comment/concern my area legislators have. They believe that libraries do a great job of being accountable for all expenditures.
Linda Friedow
Director
Britt Public Library
Of all the problems with the reorganization process the biggest has been lack of transparency. It began in the dark, and has been misrepresented from the start. This was shown clearly by the discussion at the Mason City Town Hall meeting last Wednesday.
ReplyDeleteWhat's most troubling is that there will be a vote at Coralville during the ILA business meeting to support the reorganization plan as presented at Town Meetings....but what would that vote actually mean? Very few of the 400 libraries from the A and B sized library can afford to attend ILA, much less drive to Coralville. This majority segment of Iowa's libraries was never consulted, never asked directly. They were asked only to sign on to a fait accompli.
The idea that the legislature will accept this model, based on its structure and a 22,000 dollar savings is unproven and impossible to guarantee. That it will preserve service as small libraries are accustomed to would be laughable if not so insulting. Ask these libraries. Listen to them.
My strong recommendation is to start this entire process over, with full disclosure and full participation. The not-so-veiled threat of doom if we do nothing and the process left to the legislature is unproven.
Let's have a direct vote of all ILA members, by paper ballot, by e-mail, by some form that allows every member to have a voice, not just the few at Conference. ILA is pledged to serve all its members, all libraries, but this plan, and the process from which this plan has grown, does not do that. It's time to step up and allow everyone to be heard.
I worry about the A and B sized libraries and what kind of service will be available to them. These libraries, along with many others, depend on the LSA staff to provide more hands-on service than the largest libraries. Having several staff available just an hour away is vital to help them provide quality library service to their population. They, too, need to help people do job searches, access distance-learning facilities, and accomplish professional library tasks...and on a daily basis. I believe that some re-thinking needs to occur about other ways to tighten the budget and yet provide the vital services needed by the 500 smaller libraries of the state. I'm not questioning the thought process that went into the plan above, just that it does not really help the vast majority of Iowa's libraries. Please proceed carefully to find cost-saving initiatives for the state library. Virginia From Charles City Library
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone's comments thus far. As an employee at a B sized library, I can speak from experience when I say that the LSAs are an integral part of our operations. They provide us with training; opportunities for CE, both through provided courses, and scholarships to attend conferences; and serve as a sounding board for any problems or questions that may arise.
ReplyDeleteAs the Children's and Youth Services director for my library, the LSAs provide me with excellent service in planning and implementing programing, as well as an avenue to connect with others in my area to brain storm and share ideas.
I feel like the plan proposed by the committee doesn't take into account that the vast majority of libraries in Iowa are small and depend on this kind of extra support. While I can see how the proposed plan would benefit larger libraries, I feel that it drops the ball when it comes to the majority of us.
The plan outlined in the comments is far preferable to me, as it leaves a strong backbone for local support. I also agree that voting on this plan at the ILA conference is not the best idea. If you are going to open anything to a vote, every one with a stake in the outcome needs to be able to voice their opinion, not just the few who come to a conference. An email survey done through Survey Monkey or another internet survey provider would reach the masses in a way voting at ILA cannot.
I feel like I speak for the A and B sized libraries when I say we may be small, but we are not meek. We will be heard!
Sarah Day
Children's and Youth Services Director
Alden Public Library
I am concerned that taking a vote of just the ILA membership will leave out too many A and B sized libaries that do not pay dues to ILA. Rather, I'd like to see an up-or-down vote of all libraries in the state using Survey Monkey, and set up by ILA as an independent agency. Considering there are over 400 size A, B, and C libraries in the state, and were represented by only two members on the committee, as opposed to the 30 or so largest libraries that also had 2 representatives on the committee, these people deserve to be heard loudly and clearly about what they want for library services.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking as a "C" size library, and major advocate for small libraries in our state, I've felt many strong reactions to this process. I've been shocked by the way this situation came about, I've stood ready to defend the funding of my LSA to my legislators and all who would listen, and I've placed my hope in ILA's Reorganization Committee that there could be some sense made of this mess.Am I saddened by the prospect of losing our local LSA boards? Definitely. This is a loss I will mourn, as my life has been touched by members of these boards statewide, not to mention the support they have provided my library.Am I worried about how already-diminished LSA offices will provide service with yet another cut in staffing? Of course. It's amazing to me what our LSAs have endured while continuing to commit themselves, heart and soul, to the health of every tiny library in our area. They simply don't deserve this.
ReplyDeleteDo I think it's possible to put together and run with an entirely different plan at this point? No. Truly, I do not. The time we were given was limited, and is nearly gone. The funds we have available (or assume we might still have available) are limited, and dwindling. LSAs, in some cases, were living on borrowed time, running on reserve funds and hoping for a turn-around in the economy that just doesn't seem to be coming along. What if we coasted along until those reserve funds ran out? Pair that loss of back-up funding with further cuts and there is nothing left. I truly hate that this is about money, but I do think there is some weight behind the argument that putting library services into one line item on the state budget makes us less of a target for elimination.
My hope is that our treasured LSA staff survive yet another major shift in their work lives and can come out on the other side as part of a stronger organization that is better able to hold steady through these lean years.
I will support the Reorganization plan presented by the committee and inform my local legislators about it. I will rally for dynamic individuals representing small libraries in the outer reaches of the state to have their share of seats on the newly-proposed Advisory Panel. This is our means of holding our new support system accountable for meeting our needs. I will keep my eyes open and be more watchful, from here on out, for opportunities to position the cause of small libraries into the place of importanice they deserve in the Iowa Library Community. I think that if this experience has taught us anything, it is that we need to be aware of and involved in what goes on in this larger community. Those from small libraries need to be involved in ILA, and need a place at the table with every issue that might affect them. We need to make ourselves visible. Literally.
Tena HansonLibrary DirectorMilford Memorial Library
I agree with Tena that it is probably too late to switch plans. Given the time frame and the parameters given to the committee, this is probably the best the committee could come up with. It was a very difficult task and I do appreciate and thank them for their work.
ReplyDeleteI do not, however, support the reorganization model simply because I do not support the elimination of the Library Service Areas. No matter how you couch it, the reorganization model eliminates the system.
The committee was charged with coming up with a model that eliminates boards, reduces funding, etc. I believe this model fine tunes and fleshes out Rep. Mascher's amendment which was defeated. Barb's model, with the exception of the retention of the seven independent boards, can certainly address the concerns.
The bottom line is, is the elimination of the Library Service Areas what we want? If it is, then let's do it. If it isn't, then why support it?
I believe that any final plan offered up should be voted on by all libraries, not just those attending the ILA conference. That really is the only equitable way to make a final determination on this.
ReplyDeleteI also understand the need to save money, but wonder if the proposed plan discussed at the Town Meeting in Mason City is the way to do that. In our discussion it became evident that grants that are requested by the LSA and their non-profit branch will no longer be able to be written as the LSA will be part of State government. So, we will lose funding for services that North Central provides for us due to that.
I am absolutely against losing the local input and control that our LSA board of trustees gives to us. All decisions concerning the funding of services to our area would be made under the State Library umbrella. Do we really want one entity having all that power? Do we want to eliminate the expertise and local voice these LSA boards bring to our areas?
Trisha Hicks
Burt Public Library Director
Any vote at ILA in Coralville will not reflect the opinion of the Iowa library community as a whole. It can only be representative of the members present at that moment. I agree with the earlier postings that another method to survey every ILA member should be employed. Perhaps some thought should also be given to polling directors of every Iowa public library. Any reorganization of service delivery will involve all Iowa public libraries, not just the ones that can afford ILA membership.
ReplyDeleteFrom reading the open-ended survey responses and listening to those who spoke up at Town Meeting last week, one would feel that most small public libraries are pleased with the service we currently receive from our LSAs. Many of us have a much more distant relationship to the state library. I can’t remember ever asking anything of the state library. The only time I contact the state library is when I need a simplification of their report, form or survey questions. The only time it contacts us is when it needs information.
By contrast, someone from this library is in direct contact with our LSA almost weekly. Barb’s proposed alternative plan has my support. It should be seen favorably by all small libraries. It gives us what we want and need, local support for our local libraries by an LSA staff that has proved that it knows, cares about and understands small Iowa libraries.
Nikki Ehlers
Humboldt Public Library
Legislation asked that the study of library services look at what's best about the LSAs. I believe that one of the very best things about the LSAs is their local-oriented boards and their ability to deliver services customized to their local areas. I understand that that will not “sell” in the legislature as it looks to reduce the number of public boards, but I believe we still need to make sure that a model does include as many of the best features of the current agencies as possible. I still have many questions and concerns, but below are some of my current thoughts about the model, after talking with librarians individually, and listening to comments and questions at 3 subcenter meetings and 1 town meeting. (Apparently, I have too many comments, so I’ll put them into comment posts…)
ReplyDeleteCommunication—constant and transparent—would be key. I would like to see lines of communication represented on the model (and there should be a lot of them.) Every component of the NEW agency (and I stress that this would be a new agency, not the State Library absorbing the LSAs) must listen to every other component. The advisory panel, especially, must be heard (and I mean HEARD) by everyone—the Commission, particularly, and the state librarian and the teams. I think there should be regularly scheduled (short!) surveys whose results are public, so the agency cannot pick and choose what it represents as the needs of the library community. The agency, and especially the state librarian, should be hearing from, and listening to, the library community—not just pieces of it--every day. A given percentage of the Advisory Panel should attend Commission meetings, and the state librarian & team leaders should also attend.
Staffing. As many people as possible should be staffing the district offices and those should be people with the experience delivering the services at the local level. (I would like to see more than are in the model. The SWILSA office, for example, has two staff who create Early Childhood Literacy kits that are used by libraries all around the state, they design and do die cuts for bulletin boards and crafts, they did a DAILY marketing calendar with ideas for marketing and programming, etc. I would hate to see the library community lose that creativity and talent.)
The model shows no supervisory (Program Director) positions at the middle level, truly “flattening” the organization, so I’m assuming the people currently holding those positions will be at Consultant level, saving a fair amount of salary money, as is being saved by the LSA Administrators being shifted down to Consultant. I also believe, as this would be a new agency and so the positions would all be new, that everyone, from the state librarian down, should be applying for positions.
Part 2 (sorry to be so "wordy"!)
ReplyDeleteTeams. If teams are to truly work they must be allowed to function as teams, not just groups on which a trendy moniker has been hung. If innovation is to happen—and libraries are telling us that that is important to them—then the teams cannot just be called teams because it sounds good, and then have an artificial leader assigned to them. Leaders emerge, they are not assigned. There must be easy, trusted, and animated communication among the teams—perhaps in a World Café style. Teams should meet regularly with the Advisory Panel to discuss needs and report on projects.
Innovation. Innovations and pilot projects MUST be allowed (required!) to take place at the district level, where the consultants are working with, and seeing and hearing from the librarians every day. Projects would be reported to the Advisory Panel for possible implementation in other parts of the state. Large projects with larger costs would be presented to the Panel for discussion and recommendation to the Commission. Innovation must be not be just encouraged, but REQUIRED. There is no choice, if a support agency is to truly support and serve its libraries
The library community must make sure that libraries are heard—every day—and get the services they need. The library community needs to make the model what it needs it to be.
Karen Burns, Administrator, SW LSA
This reorganization committee is based on what has been called a "legislative mandate." But there are several legislators who deny such a mandate exists. In other words, this open and transparent process has been built on a foundation of misrepresentations.
ReplyDeleteThe legislature will not accept this plan as it is for several reasons, the primary one is that it will not provide the service to which we are accustomed, despite its promise to do so. And they will not be impressed the whopping $22,000 savings this plan provides.
Leave the LSA system as it is--it works, despite draconian budget cuts the past few years. If good, proven, library service at a bargain is the goal, the LSAs are the answer. Turning these services over to the State Library guarantees fewer services, at viturally no savings.
Do it now. Ask the tough questions. Then, at the ILA Conference in Coralville next month, vote against this plan so we can all get back to work.
Jeffrey Pilz
NCLSA Vice-President
ILA Executive Board
ILTA Vice-President
How would these "innovations and pilot projects" be funded? Who would determine what innovations or projects are more important than others? Does each "team" or district office have a separate amount of money to use for innovation? Who determines how many people are on a "team"? What if 8 people want to be on one team and none on another? Will the funding reflect that?
ReplyDeleteI've had several vendors tell me how much easier it is to work with smaller groups of libraries in order to purchase databases or resources, rather than wading through the quagmire of state government in order to get something set up statewide. I'm very concerned about how the various projects currently in use across the LSAs will continue to be offered, especially if they will have to be redirected through state government.
I like the new plan. It is well-thought out and gives equal access to both small and large libraries. That's what's needed. I like that it has a positive look to it - something actually new and not just a grudging cutting back because of financial constraints.
ReplyDeleteThe advantage that libraries have now that budgets must be cut is that people like us. They use the libraries. In general they don't react negatively to us or want us to disappear. There's no reason for us not to move forward in a positive direction. A united front.
The legislature will be happy with a concrete plan that has our support and looks logical. That makes them look good. Thanks, committee members, your new ideas are concrete and logical!
I hope we non-ILA libraries will get to vote on this. We need the state-level structure as much or more than any library.
Susan Sup
Arnolds Park Library
Kathy A. Parsons, Iowa State University Library (Please note that these comments do not reflect the opinions and views of Iowa State University or the ISU Library)
ReplyDeleteWhen the announcement came out about the “reorganization” of the infrastructure for provision of state-wide library services and the make-up of the committee charged with creating it, I was extremely concerned. It appeared that the divide between the LSA/Public Libraries, State Library, and ILA was being bridged but at the expense of other library types in the state; mainly the academic library community. I felt that a new rift was being created and that it would be between the academic library community and State Library/LSA/Public libraries/ILA. I felt the value and role that academic libraries including the community colleges play in their local communities (and library committee) was not being considered and would be ignored. After talking various people involved in the formation of the committee, I was reassured that this was not intent and that the academic library community would be included in the process. Since this committee was created as the request of “some legislative mandate or suggestion," all these meetings were open to all Iowans. As the result I attended every meeting of the committee and participated in the activities and discussions as a member of the “studio audience.”
After listening to concerns expressed at the committees and reading the written comments here, I feel that there are two main issues. One is the infrastructure of the organization and the other is the actually services being provided. The change I see is the how and not the what. Yes, the structure is different from what exists now and perhaps some services currently provided by some LSA will be provided from a more centralized location. But no desired service to libraries is being eliminated.
I believe the proposed plan including the financials is sound solution to a complicated issue. I trust it will best serve the majority of library types across Iowa from small to large, from public to academic.
Here is what I see: a plan that provides 7 districts (restoring the current number of areas from 6 to 7), a plan that adds an additional $23,000 savings to the $362,000 cut from FY11 for a total annual savings of $385,000, and a plan that will maintain the services provided by both the LSAs and the State Library. Here is what I envision: a plan that can create new exciting working relationships with other libraries and librarians, a plan that provides additional clout when negotiating contract with vendors not traditionally associated with public library use, a development of a statewide library catalog of all libraries, and a brighter future for all Iowans who use and love their libraries.
I am aware that change is hard but this change is necessary us to continue to provide quality service for the Iowans who use our services. I am certain that the new upper management (for lack of a better term) has heard and accepts the responsibility for maintaining the level of experience/expertise that libraries/librarians have come to expect with the current structure. I am confident that all the concerns about maintaining close working relationships and personalized service will be worked out. I will sincerely hope that this will happen and if it does not I will be willing to express my dismay.
To quote Patrick Henry: “United we stand, divided we fall. Let us not split into factions which must destroy that union upon which our existence hangs.” Our union is the provision of quality library services to all Iowans from the smallest public library to the largest academic library and all libraries in between.
Kathy A. Parsons, Iowa State University Library (Please note that these comments do not reflect the opinions and views of Iowa State University or the ISU Library)
ReplyDeletePart Two: Questions
If I understand from the FAQ about the proposed plan, the Iowa Library Commission is governed by the Code of Iowa and will not change. What is new is the Advisory Panel of Librarians which is intended to gather information about services, initiatives, programming, training, etc. that libraries across the state would like to see from the Iowa Library Services. This group gives input to both the Library Commission and the new upper management (for lack of a better term). This is appears to be a revamping (of sorts) of the current LSA Board of Trustees structure.
Does this advisory board need to be comprised entirely of librarians? Can interested citizens be appointed to it? Currently the LSA Board of Trustees has three members directly related to public libraries, one to a community college, and two at large. I am wondering if including a more diverse group of members help to alleviate fears of no voice to the needs of the library users and/or smaller communities. Personally I like the potential of including other types of libraries (school and academic libraries) and perhaps businesses representatives. Would this group be a fix term appointment? What size would it be? Would be flexible enough to change composition for differing needs?
Also, it appears from the FAQ that the districts can create informal advisory groups to assist them in gathering feedback from citizens. Is this so? I assume the composition of these groups would be left up to the district consultants. Would there be any over-arching guidelines for the composition to create a representative group?
While no model is going to be what we've always had, or maybe even perfect, I want to applaud the hard work that all the members of this committee have put in to coming up with this particular model. I am willing to support it and feel that it is a good option for us. I was impressed with what both sides-the state library and the LSA's gave to get to this point. I don't believe any other reconfiguration of this would be any better than what this group has already come up with. I think this plan will provide for both small and large libraries to continue to receive the services and consulting that they need as well as a continuation of programs that we all want such as WILBOR, Education, E rate and more.
ReplyDeleteOne of the rewards of volunteerism is being a LSA trustee. Over the past elected boards were changed to appointed boards with more built in expertise. This was a big change at that time, Now with the new boards much more combined efforts have brought new and good things to Iowa's libraries. All the academic, public,school and ILA were brought on board. Local, middle and State boards offer good citizen input and volunteerism. They do a good job advocating. Please think about this more. Merle Ayres patron Humboldt, LSA trustee
ReplyDeleteThere are several things I find completely unacceptable about Barb's proposed plan. Two of the biggest issues are: the continued multi-layer and even increased layers of governance with boards under boards under a larger commission.
ReplyDeleteThe second serious flaw with Barb's plan is the blithe way that one entire Library Service Area office and staff are eliminated simply due to teh fact that there is currently a staff vacancy and Barb wants to be able to show money savings in her plan.
That is 15 large counties and 53 libraries and in an area of the State where the higher unemployment and poverty rates makes many small local libraries particularly in need of the kind of consulting and training assistance at which the LSA excel.
One thing that the entire Reorganization Committee agreed on from the beginning of its meetings was the need for special consulting and project help out in the field all around the State and not just from long distance - and yet this plan would simply eliminate the Southeastern Library Service Area to save money while doubling the workload, but not the staffing of another LSA? I don't really consider this a plan at all.
Vicki Hibbert
Clive Public Library
Southeastern Library Services and East Central Library Services were merged. Southeastern was not "elminated". I assure you, the decision to merge EC and SE was not lightly made. Faced with a $300,000 budget cut, the Library Service Areas did what we needed to do to preserve the services AND the staff. No staff members were laid off. That cut was the entire budget from one LSA plus an additional $100,000. There was nothing "blithe" about the decision. It was done as logically as possible given the circumstances. It was a decision that all seven LSA boards approved.
ReplyDeleteThe current structure retains 7 professional staff members who are available to any library in the state. The East Central office in Bettendorf retains a full time consultant and a half time office manager. Not much different from the proposed model that eliminates the current governance structure, with the exception that the proposed model eliminates 4 support staff.
Would Barb's model be more acceptable if there was just one board/commission with jurisdiction
over the State Library and the Library Service Areas? The State Library would continue to operate statewide programs, special consulting. The Library Service Areas would continue to work locally, with the ability to make decisions that affect the local libraries in their areas.
I believe the key issue is the ability to make local decisions. The services that librarians want to preserve are the result of the structure that gives the LSAs the ability to make decisions that impact the libraries in the local area.
Having an advisory panel is a good idea, but it does not address the local issue when decisions are being made by a statewide panel. A program that works well in one area may not work well in another. When LSAs introduce projects we must get approval from our boards, which are made up of local librarians, local trustees, local community college/AEA reps and other local people. Will services improve when that approval must come from a statewide commission/board/advisory panel? I'm not convinced that it will.
Lily Lau
East Central Library Services
I have studied the reorganization plan as Director of E size library with 49 years employment, 39 as Director. When discussion began I reviewed library board minutes, scrapbook clippings & history of what transpired through the years. When I began it was the Iowa State Traveling Library. Mid 60’s the state formed cooperatives to adequately blanket libraries throughout the state, first cooperative headquartered in the Cedar Falls Public Library. In twelve years cooperatives expanded to ten. Estherville Public Library joined the Co-op at Mason City Public Library. Centralized buying with greater book discounts was a big advantage supplementing book budgets. The advantages of Co-ops gave member libraries an opportunity to offer more services to their citizens, acted as reference centers, provided workshops & in service training to both library boards & staff at minimal cost. I=Lite teletype was used to request reference materials through the Co-op and the library having the material would forward it to appropriate library. Expenses were all inclusive within the framework of Co-op budgets.
ReplyDeleteIn 1969 Co-ops were geographically relocated. Library boards approved the continuation of participation in cooperatives & War-Eagle Co-op in Sheldon became the Northwest Iowa headquarters. The proof of the growth in library services as a result of the Co-ops being located closer to communities served, advanced a need to form the Regional Library Service by an act of legislation in 1973. The change resulted in scaling down to 7 regions instead of 10 Co-ops. Northwest Regional Library Services located offices in old Sioux City Public library & eventually moved to new facility. This is when regional library boards became such an important part of providing a means for which libraries were advanced to a level of service that would not have been possible without the help of regional staff and board.
In 2001 legislature established a title change to library service areas. This was an excellent choice because it described exactly what Northwest Library Service Area & Staff does for libraries of all sizes in Northwest Iowa. The staff has been the resource of knowledge where we could get immediate results for consulting, training, technology & the continuation of cooperation. There is not enough room in this blog to tell you what the staff & board in Northwest Iowa has done for our library. Through all of this they have suffered loss of funds, staffing, & heavier work load including the constant need to show accountability to the governmental departments of the State. The State Library of Iowa is to be commended for the many programs that have been developed but these have only been successful because of follow up support from LSA's.
Bonnie McKewon stepped up to the plate along with Nathan Clark & Sandy Long to serve on the reorganization committee for which I say thank you. One important aspect of this whole reorganization is that we need the LSA boards & staff in the geographic areas they serve. Northwest Iowa is unique in that we are far removed from metro areas other than Sioux City, thus the importance of NWRLSA. The committee has experienced a difficult process but the present proposal seems to offer the opportunity to blend the services provided by the LSA with the services of the State Library.
In closing I just want to comment that I realize much of the present reorganization has to do with money, but what I’m observing in my career is a system that has almost gone full circle. We need to retain a model keeping the LSA’s. I will be retiring in 2012, thus I am posting my comments in the best interests of whoever will be my successor. Carolyn Walz Director Estherville Public Library
The summer library program has been very successful for Iowa and other states.Yes the NCLSA has done this and hopefully it will be continued. The staff at North Central LSA had to work hard to keep and promote the Summer Reading Program. We had to inform them of the impending reorganization that our board can no longer honor a new contract. If it will not be renewed then most of it will be lost. Another state will then take over or something. I think this has been good for our state. If it is valued it can be rebid. This is one good program that should be thought of not dropping because of reorganization plans. Many educational opportunities of young kids in many libraries may not be there in the future. Merle Ayres patron
ReplyDelete