Comments on: On Privatization

By: John Kirriemuir

John Kirriemuir — Sun, 07 Aug 2011 11:50:45 +0000

I’d like to comment on this, but being a Brit (even if in America) I’d then be accused of anti-American racism by a notorious British library erm campaigner:

http://www.goodlibraryguide.com/blog/archives/2011/08/no_more_xenopho.html

By: Andy

Andy — Sat, 02 Oct 2010 06:08:34 +0000

That’s the benefit and drawback of a county system. You put all your money in one pot which turns a bunch of smaller amounts into a bigger one; with that you have bigger and better buying power. The downside is that the money is not always allocated in an equal distribution. And in this case, it sounds like they got tired of being turned down for their local stuff.

Thanks for your comment. And for looking into it for yourself, which I think was lacking in this situation from a lot of people.

By: Andy

Andy — Sat, 02 Oct 2010 06:00:51 +0000

I can’t see that level of outsourcing and I’ll tell you why. Libraries have always been about the local which is something that cannot be easily replicated by someone overseas. While others may point to certain operations that could be outsourced, I would say that it would not be enough to make the practice worthwhile presently.

Also, woe to the first government official that ships this kind of service overseas.

I would not dismiss private management out of hand. I’d like to get a better look at it before dismissing it. There might be some things that could be learned from private management.

By: Arielle

Arielle — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 15:08:10 +0000

It’s unbelievable that people are actually extolling the virtues of privatization! Soon our public libraries will be outsourced to India…lovely….

By: FSkornia

FSkornia — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 13:40:02 +0000

To throw some more information into the mix, I was searching around for more information when the New York Times article was published and found the agenda for the meeting where Santa Clarita discussed withdrawing from the Los Angeles County System here: http://apps.santa-clarita.com/agendas/CouncilItemPrint.aspx?ID=5198

It also has financial information, both in the agenda report and in the links at the very bottom. It’s interesting to see that one of the major disputes is that according to Santa Clarita,LA County refused to allocate additional funds for the construction of a new library, despite Santa Clarita showing the income they provided to the county.

As for LSSI’s involvement, from what I’ve read one of the areas that they significantly cut spending is in the area of pensions – which is what has crippled the American automakers as well, providing 401K plans instead.

I do agree that the comments by Pezzanite were needlessly harsh, but I feel there also has been a lot of misunderstanding about what this move actually means. As you mentioned in the comments, the services are going to remain free for the library’s communities, what is changing is how the library is being managed.

By: Andy

Andy — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 06:06:56 +0000

Jeff, you nailed the real issue here: what Santa Clarita wants versus what Los Angeles County is providing. Their assessment is the best case scenario; which entails getting out of the system without a hitch. It will be interesting to see what the reality turns out to be.

I do realize that LSSI *says* they will hire people at current salaries, but I’ll wait to see what actually happens. I never cease to be surprised sometimes.

Thanks for the comment, as always!

By: Andy

Andy — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 06:02:56 +0000

I’m really not sure about this reply. I get the gist of what you are getting at, but I would not compare Blackwater to LSSI. That’s just silly.

By: Andy

Andy — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 04:59:24 +0000

Just to be clear: the library will remain free to the public of Santa Clarita. What changes is how the money is allocated within the system. As they are moving to withdraw from the system, their taxes will go to support the smaller group of libraries.

The big change is that they want to offer more hours, the same level of staffing at the same salaries (for existing employees), and more services. That’s a pretty big stone to be squeezing blood out of. And in this case, the blood is librarian salaries and replacement by paraprofessionals.

By: Jeff Scott

Jeff Scott — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 00:10:53 +0000

Thanks for writing about this.

The cost reduction for LSSI is always staff. The hire staff back for less money and smaller benefits package. These guys never talk to libraries or librarians, they only talk to City Managers and County Administrative Officers. The libraries don’t even know what’s going on until the CAO fills them in. They have a total and complete disdain for public libraries.

This fight was really between the City of Santa Clarita and LA County Libraries. Santa Clarita didn’t like the reduction of services, so they pulled out.

Then the realized how expensive it is to run a library. Furthermore, that the property tax revenue they would get for pulling out of LA was much less than the benefit they received for service from LA County Libraries. This was their only option and they couldn’t afford to run it on their own.

It’s also interesting that LA County Library just stopped renovating one of the branches since it is no longer part of their system, and Santa Clarita is surprised, local politics.

By: G Husting

G Husting — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:40:54 +0000

Thanks for this.
About privatizing:
Privatizing libraries may seem to get one some surface freedoms, but employees and ‘products would, of course, be brought in with the bottom line, and if you’ve seen, say, The Corporation, or used a Red box instead of a video store, there’s little doubt what that line is or how it would work. Look at the efficiency of publicly owned rail systems in Europe, and the *catastrophe* that continues from the UK’s privatization. Go several times to a Dr. or hospital in Canada, France, England, Wales; then go to several in the U.S. and see how you fare, who gives better service, more efficiently, with less harm to human beings. Privatization has costs, and we seem to forget that in the U.S. *every time.* It doesn’t mean you’re free: it just means you’re free of *government* which has some nominal (read “legal”) obligation to listen to its constituents. Businesses *don’t.* Especially not if they’re *on contract* from the government (Blackwater, anyone?).