Well, our long hot mildly-warm summer debating the City’s proposed library takeover is nearing its climax.
The City Council agenda for Tuesday, August 24, has a new business agenda item with lots of interesting details about the City’s proposal.
For starters, staff is recommending the City go forward with the takeover plan, and further recommends (just as I predicted) that the City hire Library Services & Systems, Incorporated, of Maryland, to manage the City’s three libraries at a cost of $3.1 million for FY 2011-2012. They propose that the City & LSSI takeover our libraries by July 1, 2011, a very aggressive timeline.
But before we get to that, let’s take a look at the agenda item:
- Staff repeats the same financials it has stated all summer long: Santa Clarita taxpayers paid $6.4 million into the COLA Library system in 2008-09, while COLA’s costs for running the libraries in the SCV amounted to $6.06 million in that same time period, a surplus for COLA amounting to over $400k. That’s not including property tax and special library tax revenue; staff says when you consider that, we’ve provided $14.4 million in surplus revenue to COLA from FY 2003-2004 through FY 2008-2009. (Contrast that with COLA Library Margaret Donnellan Todd’s KHTS editorial here)
- Staff says the Council should schedule a public hearing (apart from Tuesday’s Council meeting) on this matter
- As stated on the city’s library site, staff notes that using City-hired employees to run the library would cost substantially more than hiring an outside firm
- Total start-up costs (buying the Valencia & Newhall libraries, COLA’s collection, furniture, fixtures and equipment) for the City would be approximately $8 million
- The City says it will develop performance measurement standards to ensure “excellent” delivery of library services. That’s encouraging.
- The city says it will increase the hours the CC and Newhall branches are open by 10 hours per week, a 19% increase. It also says it would increase the amoount budgeted for books from $450,000 to $550,000. Not clear where they’re getting that $450,000 figure from (is that how much COLA spends each year for books in SCV?)
- The other big matter: Can SCVers outside the City’s boundaries borrow materials from Santa Clarita City Libraries? I don’t see that addressed at all in the agenda item.
- What about intra-library loans? Staff says the City could join the Southern California Library Cooperative, which would enable access to the collections of COLA, City of LA, Orange County, and other libraries. Staff says Santa Clarita would have access to “collections totaling over 29.6 million items.” Staff recommends that the City “charge no fee for patrons borrowing books through inter-library loans.”
- Perhaps reacting to some of the comments here on SCVTalk and some LTEs in the Signal, the staff defends LSSI, saying the 31% of the company’s Moorpark City Library staff has Master’s degree in library science. The agenda item says LSSI workers are “paid competitive salaries and benefit packages, typically including a matching 401k retirement program.” Staff has attached a White Paper written by the Riverside County library system detailing its experiences with LSSI
- The agenda item includes some (in my opinion) cheap shot quotes from newspaper articles about COLA cuts. But the item notes that no COLA cuts have affected the SCV branches, though it notes that COLA has told the City that once the new Newhall library opens, service cuts at Valencia and CC branches might need to be made
- The agenda item also quotes from SCVTalk, to my knowledge the first time SCVTalk has appeared in a City Council agenda
- The Local Control Angle: “Should the City Council decide to operate the City’s libraries, decisions that would be made locally would include the books and materials to be purchased, the employees to be hired, the special programs to be hosted, the fees to be charged, and the policies to be administered. All decisions relative to public library services in Santa Clarita would be specific to and for Santa Clarita.”
- Finally, the agenda item says the City Attorney has researched the COLA Librarian’s claim that the City would not be allowed to collect funds from a 1997 Library tax vote. “The City attorney has determined that upon withdrawal from the County Library, the City can levy and collect the special library tax approved by the voters of the City of Santa Clarita.”
Overall, there doesn’t seem to be a lot that’s new here, though you can tell that the City is sensitive to some of the criticism that’s been leveled against it since this matter arose in June, particularly on the matter of the professionalism of LSSI and on COLA Librarian Margaret Donnellan Todd’s comments in The Signal, KHTS, and SCVTalk.
Speaking of LSSI: it doesn’t appear the City gave any real consideration to hiring its own librarian and library staff. As they note in the agenda, the proposed timeline is aggressive and problematic “because we would have to recruit and hire a City Librarian and other top library employees, a process which could take several months.” It also happens to be more expensive, as they note. So they recommend doing what we knew they would recommend all along: outsource the operation of our libraries to a private sector, for-profit company. They say LSSI can handle a 9 month transition timetable.
As for the RFP that appeared on the City’s website earlier this month, staff says that only LSSI responded. They reviewed LSSI’s proposal (which is not linked in the Agenda) and found it to be “comprehensive and responsive.” Staff says they’ve visited some LSSI-run libraries and interviewed staff there.
For SCVers outside the City limits, this agenda item can’t be good news. There’s no mention of what people in say, Stevenson Ranch, can expect once the City takes over the library. Over at SantaClaritaLibrary.com’s FAQ section, the City answers the question of non-resident library access with a simple and unconvincing “Yes.” (Also, the question is worded funny- “Can I still go to the City libraries? Of course you can!)
Along with the intra-library loan issue, I expect non-resident access to be one of the main topics at Tuesday’s Council meeting and the follow-up public meeting. We Santa Claritans may get enhanced service out of this proposal, but what about our neighbors in unincorporated County areas? Only Castaic’s library will remain part of the COLA system.
So after reviewing the agenda item, what are your thoughts?
Loading ...
I would hope that the City adopts a policy similar to the City of Burbank:
“Anyone who lives, works or goes to school in the City of Burbank or lives in the County of Los Angeles may be issued a library card free of charge.”
http://www.burbank.lib.ca.us/library-policies.cfm
Los Angeles is similar… Are you a California Resident? You can get a library card!
Other than the inconvenience of having to drive to Castaic to get in the door of a county library to have access to their collection… I really don’t see as much downside to this.
I still object to the privitization of it… but I don’t think I can win that battle at all…
How quickly will the city enact the proposed ‘No Homeless Allowed’ policy at the new bibliotheque? Follow up: who will use the library computers when the homeless aren’t welcome?
A few things to note:
Relying on SCLC for interlibrary loans: By policy, most public libraries do not loan AV items through interlibrary loan to other systems.
The $550,00 budget that the city believes they will have to buy books: In the LSSI proposal attached to the agenda item, this $550,000 is dedicated to “acquisitions.” This means everything in the collection, not just books. Periodicals, downloadable ebooks and audiobooks, databases, on-line newspaper and magazine archives and so on. If the COLA budget for books is $450,000, as the city says, then the numbers they are comparing are apples and oranges.
I suspected this, so those of us who rely on the County library system for books on CD for long commutes will be skunked! Thanks City of Santa Clarita!
Excuse me, not apples and oranges. It’s more like taking your current budget for apples, raising it 20% and then trying to buy not just apples, but some oranges, bananas and all the rest of your groceries with just that amount. And everyone still expects you to buy a whole bunch of apples.
Another thing about LSSI: Libraries in both New Jersey and North Dakota ended contracts with them due in part to late payments of bills (“LSSI in NJ: One Contract Ends, Efforts Continue” Library Journal, 4/15/2004) In the case of Linden, NJ, LSSI was making a profit close to $300,000 before the contract was canceled.
There was also a clause in the contract that stated that, should the contract be terminated, LSSI must be described by the city in “the most positive manner possible.” What a great way to guarantee nice quotes to show to your future clients.
“The City attorney has determined that upon withdrawal from the County Library, the City can levy and collect the special library tax approved by the voters of the City of Santa Clarita.”
But the County’s unionized librarians say no, that is not the case.
Without a court determination on this issue by way of judgment (or a stipulated settlement/judgment approved by a Superior Court judge) there will always be the chance that the County Tax Collector will decide to keep the special library tax proceeds in the County’s coffers and simply stiff Santa Clarita.
I am a great believer in “Look before you leap”. As a result, it the City Attorney has confidence in his opinion, he needs to file a declaratory relief action against the County’s librarians and the County Tax Collector, and get the aforementioned judgment BEFORE the contract with this private corporation is signed by the City.
Remember that the City staff and City Attorney’s law firm have a long history of screwing up (i.e. losing cases) on important city issues (e.g. Soledad Mine, Golden Valley Road condemnation, lying to Metrolink about who actually owned the Santa Clarita Metrolink Station parking lot, sex discrimination /employee termination litigation dating back to the late 1990′s).
How will Santa Clarita taxpapers feel if the City takes over the libraries at Santa Clarita taxpayers’ cost, but the County gets to keep the special library tax money? Perhaps a bit differently.
Does anyone remember when the City rushed into a contract with a private company to run a “pilot program” to recycle baby diapers? This rush to contract with Library Services & Systems, Incorporated, of Maryland has the same odor as those old diapers.
Has anyone found out who the shareholders of Library Services & Systems, Incorporated are? Has anyone figured out who, in terms of local luminaries, that company has hired as an employee of the corporation to steer this contract, and others like it with different cities, through the political process?
Which local Santa Clarita lawyers/lobbyists are pushing for the City to enter into this contract and how much is Library Services & Systems, Incorporated, of Maryland paying them? Is there a “success fee” which will increase their take if the City Council approves the contract?
If you are a County librarian or library patron and care about this issue, do a written California Public Records Act Request to the City Clerk demanding to see every shred of paper; every email to/from/between City staff or Council members; and every email to/from outsiders including this library corporation concerning this whole issue. Since the City Attorney has announced his conclusion as to who gets the special library taxes, demand to see his detailed, written legal analysis, because he has waived his work product privilege by publicly announcing his conclusion.
I would never cease to be amazed at the information I would find in the City’s files on any topic I researched.
No one should forget that the City of Santa Clarita is the white version of the City of Bell, simply more clever than Bell’s elected officials and city staff in terms of showing favoritism and spreading money around.
I know at the CCAC meeting. It was briefly mentioned that counsel for county had a different opinion then Carl Newton regarding the tax issues
I think residents outside the City should be okay if the City joins the Southern California Library Cooperative. I think as being a member of the SCLC, privleges (book borrowing) are required for all residents who live within the State. Since the SCLC is state-funded and a look on their website shows that every library that is a member of the SCLC allows any resident in California to get a library card for free at those libraries.
There no way the City will be able to collect the special library tax. The wording was the money was for “the County of Los Angeles Public Library.” It is not transferable. The day the City takes control, the assessors office will pull the plug. This is so typical of this City; they don’t check the facts. Now they’re going to get stuck with a 5 year contract they can’t afford, and we end up with no service.
Good researching August. That’s exactly the kind of text which I think may give the County a leg to stand on in keeping the tax money.
There are two ways to skin this cat: The City can file the declaratory relief action against the County and its librarians which I mentioned.
The other way is for “someone” to put a true election on the ballot, repealing the library tax. Either the same party who put the measure on the ballot in the first place (Board of Supervisors?) has to set up the election, or Santa Claritans have to go through the arduous task of collecting enough signatures on an initiative petition to repeal the tax, and then it goes to the real election ballot.
I totally do not understand how a City operated library system could afford to leave the library tax money behind in the County’s coffers.
Bottom line, the City Attorney’s opinion is worthless because he is not the person with the “power of the pen” to sign the checks written on the County tax collector’s bank account.
Well. we still don’t buy the idea that the City can take the tax money we voted to support the COUNTY libraries. Aside from that, “interested party” got it exactly right. ” The City didn’t compare BOOK budgets. LSSI isn’t going to have much to spend, after they skim off their profit. So…how do they pay for all the databases, audio books, downloadable books, magazines, newpapers, licensing rights to MS Word, Excel, AND a few books? Oh yeah..we have “access.”
“Access to collections” seems to be the buzz word in this hostile, yet quiet takeover (a Darren Hernandez specialty. ) Why do we need “access” to 29.6 millions books? The County has 7+ million–for free. And we still aren’t being told the truth: our “access” means we have to get in line behind every single county patron who wants the same book. (remember: books on tape and movies can’t be borrowed.) Did anyone note that the inter-library loans fees are only a recommendation? We’re betting that we end up only being able to order 1 free item at a time–per year.
And how ’bout that Moorpark math? They have maybe 15 employees, so of course the percentages look higher for professionals. What we’re gonna get are people who can look up a book title. Librarians who work for LSSI are NOT paid competitive salaries and benefits; then again, “competitive” is all relative.
This agenda is full of lies and deception. Why do they harp on budget cuts? The SCV hasn’t been touched, but there’s no guarantee that under City control libraries will be untouched. There’s never a guarantee. Even the Southern California Library Cooperative is vulnerable; they’re state funded.
Over all, this has happened too fast, with little/no public input. Why the rush? If it’s such a good idea this year, it will be a good idea next year. Obviously the City doesn’t want us to know about this till it’s all over.
Linda–you’re absolutely right about SCLC and book borrowing. But the problem lies in access–you’re gonna have to find the time to search each library’s catalog, drive around to each library to get books, then take them back. Not fair to those who have been hit hard by the recession, and can’t find the $ for more gas.
The beauty of County is they deliver to your nearest branch, and you can return them to ANY County branch. Free.
I can’t believe the stupidity of this City. I went to the CCAC meeting on Wed, and all Darren Hernandez did was whine and tell us not to blame him–he’s only a city employee, who ducked out pretty quickly after his show. Come on Darren, it IS you job. You got us all into this; you didn’t get the facts, but let LLSI sucker you in. And with a FIVE year contract no less. What’s with all your “extensive” outreach? I use the library almost daily; I’ve never even heard of this until this July. Guess the library users aren’t the audience you wanted to hear from. Typical. You cost about 50 people their jobs.
There’s no question about it: the ballot from the special election of June 3, 1997 says the tax money is collected for the “County of Los Angeles Public Library.” The day the City takes control, the accessors office will cut off those funds. [Our City Attorney's law firm doesn't have a great track record of being right.] The City will have to have another election; good luck with that.
Funny how the agenda really doesn’t address the issue of the unincorporated areas. They also pay County for libraries. Does anyone at City really think they’re still gonna just hand over the money?
So the City ad hoc committee and city staff conducted “extensive outreach” to stakeholders. Funny how I never heard of this, and I’m a daily library user.
Lies and deception. Why push this so fast? I’m thinking the City is more broke than they’re admitting, and is looking for a new way to come up with revenue.
Good legal research Bookworm. That sample ballot is the key document.
I imagine many of these issues will be brought up on Tuesday night and we’ll see the item continued to another meeting.
Navigator, I wish I had your confidence. The City doesn’t have a clue how to deal with these issues; they’re full of “recommendations” but LSSI will TELL the City what they will and won’t do. The residents don’t have any say.
Does the county have to sell the Valencia library to the city or can they just hold onto it?
According to the City, they can take anything they want. Greedy little kids; they’re goin to get that toy AND the pony AND the candy–MINE MINE MINE. I’d like to see how this works, as the library building is part of the County civic center. Literally. They share an HVAC system, parking lot, utilities.
Hi Jeff! It doesn’t surprise me that the question of whether unincorporated SCV residents would be able to check out books *at no cost* isn’t addressed in the agenda item report because it cannot be answered yet.
If and when the council votes to withdraw, only then would the city & county enter negotiations for a variety of things, such as the purchase price of the Valencia library and the local collections, the disposition of the local special collections, etc. — and the matter of surcharges, if you will, for non-city residents.
As I understand it (place asterisk here), there are essentially two ways it could go: Either (a) the county contributes a fair share of the unincorporated SCV library tax revenue to the city system in return for equal privileges for all SCV residents; or (b) the county keeps all of the unincorporated SCV library tax revenue within the county system and the city charges fees to non-city residents in lieu — just as the city (sometimes) charges higher fees for non-city residents to participate in city recreation programs (which also don’t get any county funding).
This said — place a double asterisk here — I think Todd would tell you that *if* it still can be levied, the specific language of the voter-approved special tax measure (which I haven’t read lately) could obligate the city to provide free service to all residents of Los Angeles County, regardless of whether the county contributes any money to the city system.
Leon, good reporting on possible mechanics.
However, I’m sure you Mom and the other “founders” who were involved in City formation would remind you and the rest of Santa Clarita that the County, acting through “Ruth the Witch” at LAFCO stiffed the nacent City of Santa out of every penny they could. And if I remember correctly the City was formed at a time other than the Great Recession when the County is suffering huge budget deficits.
As a result, the City will get hosed by the County at the negotiating table, just like they did last time around. The County well learned Nancy Reagan’s slogan of “Just say no” and I doubt they’ve forgotten it.
Leon – Under the California Library Services Act, a library can get reimbursed by the State for a minimal amount of money for each Interlibrary Loan Transaction that takes place to those outside your library system. There are Quarterly forms filled out and filed with the State to get this funding, however, if your library charges the eligible borrowing library a “loan fee” you cannot list that transaction for reimbursement. Sound complicated? It is and there are also requirements to be an “eligible borrowing library.”
Nice to see a familiar face Cheryl. Welcome to SCVTalk. It’s Jeff, from your old employer
Hi Jeff – I’ve been reading this since my yoga teacher told me about SCVTalk a few months back. In our conversations I figured out this was you! You are doing a great job and I’m very impressed with your brilliant writing! You know me and my passion for libraries. Couldn’t help myself. Will I see you Tuesday night?
Leon, this is exactly what everyone is talking about. We need to know the facts up front, not AFTER negotiations. I can’t fathom that County will ever turn over money to a city that just kicked them out. Why would they? The Prop L ballot measure name was “County of Los Angeles Public Library,” and the tax money was to benefit “the County of Los Angeles Public Library.” Of course non-residents will be charged; but the point is, we should know this ahead of time. This is why I prefer to keep County; everyone gets to use any of their libraries FREE.
Leon, honestly, do you think County will hand over money to the City, after what the City has pulled? They kicked County out. So all this money they’re supposedly saving will now go to LSSIS as profit.
The language of the tax measure clearly stated what was to happen if the County did not run the libraries; the County tax assessor will be directed to stop collecting the tax; a new measure would have to go on a ballot to re-approve a tax.
Good research SamandNan. Let’s hope the County WOULD stop collecting the tax because it was illegal. Then again the City of Bell collected illegal property taxes for years and years before they were busted. Don’t get your hopes up. It might take a taxpayer lawsuit to get the County to stop collecting the tax.
The centralized large county library model is outdated and unsustainable. That’s why so many cities in the county have left the system. It is much more efficient to maintain libraries and their collections at the local level particularly for large cities that are geographically isolated like Santa Clarita.
It’s appalling that 17 percent of Santa Clarita’s book requests are trucked in from some other part of the county. The carbon footprint of the book transfer process is huge considering the distance most of the materials travel to the Santa Clarita Valley.
Part of the problem is that the county hasn’t increased library space as population in the valley grew.
The Valencia branch is outdated, cramped and crowded. Newhall is even worse and city taxpayer money is being used to build the new one. More books will be able to shelved in the area rather than shipped here.
What are Santa Clarita residents getting for their money? Not books and library buildings. Taxpayers actually have to buy these back from the county despite originally being purchased with their money.
The unions are using typical scare and smear tactics. Scare library patrons into believing their books and services will disappear and smear the reputation of a firm which also works for the Library of Congress and countless other government agencies.
Technology is changing the way efficient libraries will operate. Most new library demand is from job seekers. Entrepreneurs are also using libraries to research new business ideas and meet with investors. Without the burdens of a large and bloated bureaucratic overhead, City run libraries in California like Fremont and San Mateo are able to adapt to the unique emerging needs of their community, instead of those 50 miles away.
Millions of public domain books are now available in digital form. Technology now allows these books to printed and bound on-demand reducing a library’s carbon footprint. Santa Clarita will be able deploy new technology to residents quicker when all taxpayer funds are dedicated to city libraries. The county is still promising to deliver these services “soon.”
As many cities across the county have proved, the decision withdraw from the county is a no-brainer. The public employee unions are trying to protect their dues and bloated pensions with lies and misinformation.
@Dexter, I agree with your assessment of the current debate regarding the proposal by the City to withdraw from the COLA Library system.
I would also add that after reviewing the list of cities which have withdrawn from the COLA Library system, I cannot help but notice that the more affluent areas which would have generated the most excess monies into the system, i.e. Beverly Hills, Calabasas, Palos Verdes Estates, San Marino, etc have all pulled out of the system. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out why. The same reason the City of Santa Clarita wants to withdraw: to have the ability to spend local taxpayer dollars on local library needs and wishes and not continue to subsidize other areas while COLA cuts back on our services and hours.
Do any of you actually believe residents of these more affluent areas would actually put up with worse service or less access to library materials for their residents?
Beverly Hills, Palos Verdes Estates, San Marino, etc have not “pulled out” of the County Library. They were never a part of it. (If they ever were, it was long before the county system as we know it existed.)
Also, while Santa Clarita is a wealthy community in a middle-class exurban way, it is not Beverly Hills, Calabasas, Palos Verdes Estates, San Marino, etc . Don’t even try to kid yourself. Santa Clarita is also not Santa Monica, Pasadena, or even Glendale or Long Beach. Plus, all those cities run their libraries themselves. You’re right, they are smart enough to keep their funds local. They’re not passing tax money along to anybody in Germantown, Maryland.
@ Interested Party, ok then which city/community would you compare Santa Clarita to that is/remains part of COLA Library system or has opted out. Maybe COLA cities like Compton, El Monte, Bell Flower, Gardena, Bell Gardens, Bell! , humungous City of Los Angeles, or Malibu with only 13,700 residents?
The money would be spent locally: first on the library sites themselves and materials for same, next on the employee salaries and benefits or are the Librarians and staff relocating to Maryland too , and third by the money those employees spend on goods and services in Santa Clarita. Any profits may go to Maryland but right now they go to the City of Bell and elsewhere and we have zero say either way on how that money is spent.
Additionally if the City contracts with a private service and we are unhappy, as part of contract terms or at end of contract term, we still have the option of bringing library services in house anyway. Perhaps by then the economy will have improved and it will make sense to approve higher salary and benefit costs for City Librarians.
I do know one thing, if the City of Santa Clarita had not stepped in and said we will build the new Canyon Country Library a few years ago, we would still be in that crappy postage stamp library with almost no parking off of an alley. If we had to rely on COLA to fund and build the new Newhall Library, it would not even be on a wish list yet. And how much input do you think we would have had on the design or exterior look of either site etc if COLA were building it. I feel absolutely no loyalty to COLA as for many years we in Santa Clarita have paid far more in all kinds of taxes and fees to the County than we have received back in services and that is a fact not mere speculation.
The County has not cut back one single minute or service in our libraries. And those rich cities you mention were never part of the L.A. County library system
@Charlene, you need to take another look at local library days of operation and hours, particularly the Canyon Country branch. Also, please note who paid for the building, fixtures, etc and who is paying for the new Newhall Library too.
Those rich cities do not want to subsidize other cities libraries either.
Berta, I DID look at the hours and days– I’ve used the Canyon branch for the past 30 years.
There’s been no change.
@Charlene, did you also happen to notice that the Canyon Country Library is open fewer hours than the Valencia branch? Does that mean we in Canyon Country read, borrow movies etc and enjoy children’s programs, parenting classes and other educational community classes less or does that mean that COLA will save money on facilities and on staff wherever they can?
You never responded to who built the CC Library and who is building the Newhall facility.
Do you enjoy paying twice for the same thing? Once via taxes and fees to the County, once to the City for money to build and furnish sites because COLA says there is no money despite our paying more than we get back in services for YEARS.
The City collects fees for Parks via Quimby fees and other and has built several new parks since we incorporated into a separate City. If while collecting these fees the City told you to get the County to pay for your requested Park within the City, while you knew that funds collected by the City were more than sufficient to build your park, and then the County said “no park due to budget problems”, would you be ok with the City taking your extra tax money and sending it to the City of Bell Parks and Recreation Department to build parks for them? I doubt it. COLA has done exactly that for years. Takes our excess money and instead of spending it here, sends it wherever they feel like it. Moreover, if we want a new library building, fork over even more cash.
By the way, parks are a great example of taking local control. While this area was exclusively County, we had almost no parks and they were in bad shape. After we became a City and were no longer part of COLA Park system within City limits, we the residents asked for and received more and better-equipped parks based on what residents indicated they wanted to see in local parks. Our money bought us Central Park, Aquatics Center, Skate Park, Discovery Park, Longshore Park, and many more new parks and badly needed improvements at heretofore-County parks we “took over”.
Also look at the different service levels for Sherriff services within City limits and outside in the unincorporated areas. Why else do you think area residents in adjacent communities want to annex into the City of Santa Clarita? Could it be better service levels across the board for City administered services? The answer is yes!
In my opinion, a City of Santa Clarita Library System would follow the same pattern of increased service levels, greater local accountability, and better use of available funds dedicated for library services for what we indicate we want our libraries to offer.
Using the City of Bell in these conversations is counter productive and reminiscent of tabloid journalism. We have no way of knowing whether Bell gets any of our SCV money. But what we do know is the City of Santa Clarita is not looking to run our SCV libraries, rather they are ready to hand out a contract to a private company tomorrow night that is based in Germantown, Maryland. Do you know anything about this company?
@Cheryl Phillips, actually yes I do. I know that Riverside, Temecula, and Moorpark among others contract with LSSI for library services and seem to be very satisfied that they are doing an excellent job.
I also know that the City of Camarillo is considering LLSI because I just spoke with their Assistant City Manager Bruce Feng. Camarillo has already informed Ventura County they are withdrawing from their library system and is in the process of deciding whether to contract with LLSI or hire additional city staff to operate their library system as of January 2011. Camarillo also has already joined SCLC to have access to borrowing books and materials far in excess to what they currently can access. Santa Clarita, if separated for COLA, would most likely also join SCLC and be able to borrow many more materials from exponentially more library systems.
Fact check: With the notable exception of Calabasas, those cities with their own library did not “leave” County library service. They were never part of the county library to begin with. There is no “trend” like you suggest.
Calabasas did leave in the late 90s. They went with LSSI and only a few years later ended that contract. They now run their library themselves. Has anyone from the city of Santa Clarita talked to anyone from the city of Calabasas about their experience? You’d think it would be a smart thing to do.
Print-on-demand? Name a public library that does that. I’d be interested. I can guarantee this will not be one of the services offered by LSSI to Santa Clarita.
IP – I’ll trust your fact check since you appear to be some sort of expert on the county library system. The point of my post remains that the large county system is outdated and unsustainable.
It’s notable that Calabasas didn’t comeback to the county system but joined the many cities in the county from LA (pop. 4,045,873) to Vernon (pop. 85) that are providing library services to its residents.
I’m not a library expert so I can’t provide you with libraries using on-demand book technology but a quick google search reveals a few. I heard about the technology at a recent conference.
You know more than I about making guaranties on LSSI’s operations. I will guarantee that the private sector innovates faster than the public sector.
I also don’t worry about getting on city bus knowing that driver is being paid by a company making a profit.
Advocate for your position, “Interested Party” and “NanAndSam”, but do so with honesty and ethics. True lovers of libraries would expect nothing less of themselves, but you are more likely county library functionaries more interested in keeping the huge “profit” the county library makes from Santa Clarita.
Here are some of your “FALSE facts”:
- Calabasas apparently contracted with LSSI from 1998 to 2006 (8 years) according to documents on the Calabasas website. By any definition, this is not “only a few years.” But you already knew that….
- No other city has ever pulled out of the county library? Ever? Really? Well, the City of San Marino website states “Citizen activists within the P.T.A. lobbied the City Council for the establishment of a city library for San Marino, separate from the County system. The San Marino Public Library was officially established in August, 1932.” San Marino was incorporated in 1913. You should know (and I bet, you do know) that City public libraries either separated from the county library upon incorporation of the city or, as in the case of San Marino and many others such as Calabasas, after incorporation. But you already knew that….
- The county library documents posted on the city’s website define “books and materials” as the “purchase of BOOKS and other library materials such as MAGAZINES, COMPUTER DATABASES and AUDIO-VISUAL materials.” Those documents also state the amounts the county library spent on books and materials is $453,713. So apparently the $450,000 vs $550,000 comparison is “apples to apples.” But of course you already knew that…. You are just trying to plant some unsubstantiated seeds of doubt.
Print on demand? Name a library that does that? Ahhh, a challenge! Well, I Googled “library print on demand” and guess what came up?
“TEMECULA: Espresso Book Machine will allow for print-on-demand publishing”
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/temecula/article_6d5a06b3-1299-50eb-84cd-b03d94087a8a.html
Who runs the Temecula Library? OMG! It’s LSSI!!
Stuff from the article:
“The Espresso can access and print from a collection of 3.3 million titles. That list includes a large number of classic books that are no longer protected by copyright.”
SOOOOOO, if Santa Clarita is getting one of these gizmos, library patrons would be able to get any of 3.3 million titles. WOW! Cutting edge library technology in paperback format!!
But surely there must be a charge. Right? Wrong! It’s FREE!
“If a patron wants a book that the library does not have, he or she can request an Espresso copy. The patron will have the option of buying the book or borrowing it for two weeks. When it’s returned, the book will be added to the library system’s collection.”
“The Espresso should prove useful for schools that need multiple copies of a particular classic title for a class assignment.”
Watch the Espresso Book Machine spit out a library-quality paperback in minutes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q946sfGLxm4
Apparently the City is being honest and the county library folks are just throwing out lies and distortions. Why? Because Santa Clarita is their cash cow….
Oh, mercy. Yes, I guess you caught me redhanded weaving a web of lies and deceit. “8″ is most certainly more accurate than the unethical phrase “a few.” Please allow me to make amends and retype that sentence. “They went with LSSI and only
a feweight years later ended that contract.” Better now?Just a footnote – as a librarian with 17 years experience – paperback books in a library have a lifespan of approximately 4 months. Paperbacks were never meant to be library books. They do not hold up under the ins and outs of everyday library use, so really don’t know what purpose these xerox paper books would provide.
Here’s a library with Print-on-Demand: Grace Mellman, in the Riverside County Library System, and guess what, it’s an LSSI-operated system and library. And to my knowledge it’s the only library in the nation to offer this service.
Dexter, what is so “appalling” about trucking in books? No library, outside of the Library of Congress, has enough shelf space to hold all the books our users want. We order books from 90 different libraries; there’s not enough land in this valley to build a library that could hold all then.
Print-on-demand may have its place, but I don’t think we should print 1,000 copies of Twilight; what a waste of trees. And Fremont and San Mateo are much smaller cities than Santa Clarita. I don’t want to see us cut off from the 4th largest public library collection in the county, in exchange for a small local collection.
What is so “appalling” about trucking in books?
No intelligent discussion of the future of libraries includes how we are going to truck millions of books around the huge county system for free.
If we measure success of a library system as the ability to deliver information on demand at the lowest carbon footprint, the county library system is a failure. Santa Clarita can do better.
My view on the issue is based on The DaVinci Institute’s vision for local libraries as cultural centers:
“A culture-based library is one that taps into the spirit of the community, assessing priorities and providing resources to support the things deemed most important. Modern day cultural centers include museums, theaters, parks, and educational institutions. The library of the future could include all of these, but individual communities will be charged with developing an overall strategy that reflects the identity and personality of its own constituency”
As they have already, City run libraries will lead the way in adapting to the future of their communities. The large county system is a bloated dinosaur in a post-peak oil world.
“City run libraries will lead the way……….” Only problem is this will not be a City run library. The contract is on the table tomorrow night to be voted on to hand the running of our libraries over to LSSI – a company based in Germantown, Maryland. Have you done any research on this company? Do they “tap into the spirit of our community?” We need to slow down and make good decisions – maybe spending a bit more than 6 weeks when many library patrons were on vacation and are just now reading about this, evaluating this huge and important issue.
I would consider it city-run. The city can set whatever performance standards, services provided, operational policies and terms of the contract necessary to meet the unique needs of the community.
The city council could set up an library oversight committee to receive public feedback and ensure the libraries are adapting to emerging needs.
Frankly I don’t care if city employees or private sector workers are running the library as long as there is local control and a movement toward reducing the carbon footprint of the operation and adopting the cultural library model.
Power users should be advocating to make the local library system serve them better not championing how easy it is now to have books trucked in anywhere in the county for free.
It won’t be FREE……
@Cheryl Phillips, what guarantee do you have it will continue to be FREE with the County? A County in financial distress will have to make cuts and increase revenues somehow and I would bet many FREE services will cease to be FREE soon.
I’m of two minds about this. The city’s push to save money is something I understand, yet a library is to provide the largest collection so people can learn from the books in the collection. It seems that the city needs to provide a certain level of service (like the post office) and if they don’t then my question is why have a city at all?
Politics 101: Don’t Tee Off People Whose Help You Need
In case those who want to take the libraries and the library tax revenue away from L.A. County have forgotten, the bigger political issue in Santa Clarita is the massive sewer fee/assessment which was proposed by the Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District, whose directors are L.A. County Supervisor Mike Antonovich and Councilwomen Laurene Weste and Marsha McLean.
At the most recently telecast Sanitation District meeting, Supervisor Antonovich appeared to have been tremendously successful in terrifying the Sanitation District General Manager and District Counsel into backing off from their insistence that the 3 Sanitation District Directors “had to” impose the huge rate increases on Santa Clarita property owners.
Have any of the political geniuses on the City of Santa Clarita’s staff actually asked Mike Antonovich about his true feelings concerning the LA County library system losing the tax revenue from Santa Clarita which supports the LA County library system at some level of profit for county-wide operation?
In my own experiences with the City staff, other than Ken Pulskamp and Paul Brotzman, the average City staffer has the political savvy of a turnip.
If this library tax revenue to the County goes away, making his job as County Supervisor harder, Supervisor Antonovich may be very unhappy with Santa Claritans….and thus his willingness to fight on Santa Claritan’s behalf to stop the County Sanitation District’s wildly increased fees/assessments may be significantly lessened.
City Council members and staff, remember the old expression: “Don’t bite the hand which feeds you.”
My own political prediction: If you take this library tax revenue away from the County, without Mike Antonovich’s wholehearted consent, you may lose his cooperation on the Sanitation District fee/assessment issue. It’s Supervisor Mike who makes the Sanitation District’s attorney cower in fear on the dias. It’s Supervisor Mike’s ire which made the Sanitation District’s General Manager bombastically chatter like a nervous parrot, at that last Sanitation District meeting. It’s Supervisor Mike, not Laurene or Marsha, who the Sanitation District lawyers and staff fear.
Defeating the increased County Sanitation District assessments/fees is a far more important political issue, in terms of votes and fundraising for the next two City Councilmanic elections. If Supervisor Mike gets mad at Santa Claritans for draining the County’s library budget, you may have to kiss his support on the Sanitation District assessment/fee good bye, and Laurene, Marsha, Laurie and Frank will then have a much tougher time being re-elected when voters and campaign contributors are very angry on a pocket book issue: Hugely increased taxes.
Remember, they don’t call him King Mike for nothing.
@J, I sincerely doubt that Mike Antonovich is willing to commit political suicide over the COLA Library issue. I think you forget, first that Mike Antonovich is a decent guy and has been an excellent County Board of Supervisors representative for Santa Clarita, and second I doubt he is willing to place his popularity as OUR Supervisor in great peril by engaging in the vengeful tactics you suggest.
He has taken on much bigger fish than COLA Librarians or Sanitation Lawyers including his fellow supervisors, the BLM and other Feds on our behalf regarding issues such as CEMEX. I believe he will agree with whatever is best for Santa Clarita residents. Mike Antonovich has routinely been open to what is BEST for his constituents and we are fortunate to have both City Leaders and a County Supervisor looking out for OUR interests.
Besides Mike will retire one day and we do not know whom we will get instead. Even kings can be become unpopular and be dethroned if the people revolt you know. Mike is too smart to risk that.
What risk is it? There are 2 million people in his district. Only 250,000 (12%, give or take) live in Santa Clarita Valley. Even fewer likely voters.
@Jeff, I am old enough to remember when there was an effort to become our own County. Enough vindictive and/or punitive actions by Los Angeles County whether by Supervisors or LAFCO etc and it is not too difficult to envision another secession effort. In fact I believe TimBen was interested in the County Mayor (?) position had the effort prevailed.
I am not saying it would be easy and I do not think it would come to that either. I am saying there are always options for voters if they feel they are being abused. Just look at the recent events where the residents finally woke up in the City of Bell.
As I said, Mike Antonovich is too smart to risk that kind of chaos over libraries.
Punitive action might also embolden other areas/cities upset with COLA and even our own unincorporated areas and potentially even hasten City annexation requests. I don’t think anyone wants to get into a pi$$ing match.
Oh Berta, no one doubts you’ve been doing the city/county thing for many years. Good on you for always being engaged and active, no matter your politics. We need more folks like you.
In your heart of hearts, do you really think the takeover and privatization of our libraries is a good thing for our community? That’s what it boils down to.
@Jeff, actually I do think it is a good idea to have more local control over what services we buy with our tax money. If it were up to me, and the financial considerations made sense, I would want us to have our own Police Department, Animal Care and Control, and any other municipal services that would benefit from local City control.
I actually was in the process of proposing our own Animal Shelter and Control Officers last year but my research indicated the budget did not work under the current economic conditions. Residents would no doubt be unwilling to pay more to take better care of our furry friends right now. People are struggling to take care of themselves and their families and spending more for animals is not a top priority for most even during good times. At least City Staff worked with Animal Control to address my concerns. Ah, you see access to the person writing checks to Animal Control for contracted services.
The budget issue does work in our favor with library services. We have the money to build and maintain our own libraries with current funding sources. An added bonus is we could free up more money for your beloved downtown Newhall improvements too. In contrast, the County is going broke and may make even more staff and schedule reductions in the coming months or years.
I find that when the people in charge are directly answerable to the people paying the bills, they are more responsive. We can and do complain directly to City Council, City Staff, Hart School Board, when we are unhappy with their decisions, expenditures, etc and all of us have a say in whether Council, Board Members, etc are elected or reelected. We can also request citizen oversight such as with measure S, Hart School District.
We currently pay in more money to COLA than we get back in library services. Additionally on top of that we pay again for any new library construction. Not the County.
I was very involved in the design etc of the CC Library. The City worked very hard to incorporate the design elements we asked for. The City built it several years ago. We would still be waiting even for a budget appropriation for a design with the County.
I myself would prefer to have librarians hired as City Staff, maybe even those currently working in our libraries, but I recognize that this would cost substantially more than outsourcing to a private company. Most private employers operate at higher efficiencies than government, whether they are County, City, State or Federal. Especially when you factor in guaranteed retirement money while the rest of us see our IRA’s and savings disappear. That whole system needs reform and I predict will be changing in the near future. The costs are simply unsustainable.
All things considered, I think it makes sense to withdraw from the COLA Library System now and buy the Valencia Library while properties are still selling for less dollars. If we wait, purchase costs will potentially rise considerably.
I am also not opposed to waiting a few months to make this important decision if residents need and want more information. The deadline to withdraw from COLA is in December. There are still several months left to hold community meetings, reach out to current librarians and see if there is interest in applying if we do withdraw from COLA, and have staff bring in representatives from LLSI or others wanting our business and pitch their programs to us. Create a comfort level for people. Also, talk to unincorporated folks although I personally feel we should handle like Parks and Recreation. For one thing, it provides an additional incentive to annex into the City and bring those tax dollars in so you have a say on what additional services you want to see.
In Los Angeles County, the only one directly accountable to us is Supervisor Mike Antonovich, one of five on the Board of Supervisors. Repeatedly Burke and now Ridley-Thomas, Knabe, especially Molina, Yaroslavsky and their predecessors have thrown Santa Clarita under the bus and we have no ability to get rid of them. Think about the reasons we became a separate City in the first place.
One last comment, most of those advocating for COLA, such as library staff people and Carol Lutness are themselves COLA employees. Would you expect them to bite the hand that feeds them?
Well, I’M not a library employee, and neither is anyone in my family. And we want the County to stay. BTW: Antonovich is also against the city takeover.
I’m fairly new to this city and this discussion, but I did live in one of those “rich” places that had its own library. The buildings were nice, they had a city name on them, they had good parking. They also had limited collections (I could get a bio on Madonna, but not one on Louis IV), only one database., and only one trained librarian. The staff was nice, but unbelievably limited in their ability to do any real research. If I wanted a book that wasn’t on the shelf, I had to either pay to have one sent or go get it myself. Since my family are voracious readers, we quickly wore out the local collection. I read on one of the blogs that the Valencia branch library had customers ordering something like 10,000 books in one month. Which is proof that one library can’t have it all. I was in heaven to see that living here we could order FIFTY books at no charge, and delivered to the branch near where I work. Why–WHY–would the city want to trade that for going to a system of pay-per-order or fetch it yourself!? That’s not good service; that’s NO service.
The city has said they will spend more $ on buying books. That’s all fine, except where do they think they’re going to put them? There’s only so much shelf space in a building. People NEED to order from other libraries.
And that tax–I read the ballot, and it seems clear to even me that it was voted to support the County. So if the City kicks County out, I’ll be the first to take the bet that the library lawyers will do everything in their power to be at the assessors office the next morning to stop the collection.
I went to the CCAC and was horrified at the lack of answers from Darren Hernandez. Don’t you get answers BEFORE you pull the plug? How do you make an informed decision, when it all falls under the heading “we’ll see”? The city needs to put out a real fact sheet: here’s what you have, here’s exactly what we can provide. Which do you prefer? Until that happens, I’m sticking with County.
I’m hoping I didn’t move my family to a city that is trying to do things behind the residents backs. We just left one of those….
Don’t Leave Town!
Since I have been out of town off and on this summer, I was surprised when I read all my back issues of the Signal and saw Laurie Ender’s – Let’s Take Over the County Library System. Wow! This came out of nowhere! So I finished all the articles and noticed nearly every article was about money, save for Lynne Plambeck’s wonderful column about a BOOK and the joy of reading. The article also stated that the “Ad-Hoc Library Committee would meet with stakeholders, residents and community leaders about the proposal over the next several weeks.” Well, I ‘m still waiting for those meetings to be posted and advertised in the paper – nothing so far – and the City Council meeting is 3 days away.
As an Elementary School Librarian for 17 years, I needed to know much more than these articles delivered. I feel the people of Santa Clarita have a right to be fully informed about the changes that would take place in our library system and how these changes would affect them. So far they haven’t been given a whole lot of information. After a few weeks worth of digging, talking and reading one thing I know for sure, there is no way this decision can be made by August 24th. It’s a huge and complicated decision with many consequences, and we have barely begun to tell our people what’s involved.
Here are a few questions that need to be asked of the City:
Why haven’t you even discussed the option of our City running the library in more detail, rather than outsourcing it to a company in Germantown, Maryland that wants to cut costs and quality to make a profit?
And who exactly is LSSI? Does the City know they have had some problems with political contributions to city officials and state assemblymen in New Jersey tied to library services? How many lawsuits has LSSI been a party to and at what cost to each of the Cities involved?
In February of 2007 the City of Malibu hired Arroyo Associates, Inc. to do an extensive feasibility study to either withdraw from the County of Los Angeles Library System or to contract out to LSSI. The outcome of that study was that Malibu remained with the LA County Public Library System.
Why did the City of Calabasas just cancel their contract with LSSI and decide to run their library with City employees instead? Why did the City of Hemet cancel their contract with LSSI in 2004? And Fargo, North Dakota library system terminated its contract with LSSI for allegedly being delinquent in paying bills.
Also an interesting note – If LSSI does such a great job why is it that out of the 45 City libraries in SCLC only one is run by LSSI – Moorpark, who broke away from the Ventura County Library System? All 44 of the other member libraries in the Southern California Library Cooperative use their own City employees to run their libraries. From all the information I gathered, outsourcing was a last resort and seemed to fit only those libraries that were in crisis, and had multiple problem issues that could not be solved with their present system.
In January of 2002 the Florida House of Representatives did a “Report on Privatization of Public Libraries – Pros and Cons.” In this study the following libraries contracted with LSSI due to “multiple problems requiring immediate, intensive action:” Riverside County, Calabasas, Hemet, Jersey City, NJ, Linden, NJ, Fargo, No. Dakota and Lancaster, Texas. In reading LSSI’s webpage today you will find that every one of these city libraries no longer contracts with LSSI save for Riverside. Why is that? Did Darren Hernandez contact these libraries and ask why they stopped contracting with LSSI?
“Staff says they’ve visited some LSSI-run libraries and interviewed staff there.” The only libraries in California that contract with LSSI are: Moorpark City Library, Shasta Public Library and Riverside. Maybe it would have been even more important to visit the libraries that have left the LSSI system.
I’ve read that our County online catalog will be replaced by MCLS, or maybe SCLC or maybe OCLC, which gives us access to WorldCat. But who is SCLC and how would that work? Who is OCLC and what are the ongoing costs for us to have access to this catalog system? Are you aware that the City libraries, i.e., Pasadena, So. Pasadena, Glendale, San Moreno, Downey, etc., do not allow any interlibrary loans of their books that have a publish date within the last year, and that they do not lend their DVDs or their audio books on CD? The librarians I spoke to said they are just too expensive and we want them available for our patrons.
The Agenda for Tuesday’s meeting states that we will have “access to collections totaling over 29.6 million items.” That means we can look up books on OCLC and SEE 29.6 million items, but as stated above that doesn’t mean that these libraries have to send us what we want like audio books. No matter what Mr. Hernandez says, this system will not even come close to replacing the present online Book Catalog with LACOLIB. Again in the Agenda it states, that LA County charges $3 per item for interlibrary loans. Don’t confuse this with items we receive from within the County Library system – there is no charge for those items. This $3 charge refers to items you may find in a library outside the County Library system – like in Riverside or Moorpark.
When we order an item today on the LA County online catalog we have access to nearly 7 million books from over 80 libraries and this isn’t counting the DVDs, Audio books, CDs, etc., free of charge for up to 50 items delivered in a matter of days to your local library.
This will not happen with SCLC (45 libraries), or OCLC – there will most likely be a charge. I’ve seen anywhere from $2 to $10 per item. Delivery of books may take up to 5 weeks and as Palmdale told me – “They don’t even come here. We have to drive our materials over to Lancaster where they are picked up and delivered.”
I read in the agenda notes that the City will not charge for Interlibrary Loans. That’s on this end. They have no control over what the lending library charges are at the other end……….each of those libraries can charge whatever they want.
Darren Hernandez mentioned having a bond in order to buy the Valencia Library. What exactly does that mean? Would that be reflected in a property tax increase?
And finally the startup costs haven’t even begun to be touched on. Yes we need to buy the Valencia Library, and the entire collections of all three of our present libraries, but here are a few more costs that haven’t been discussed:
We will have to buy an Integrated Library System or Library Management System – you know – the database and software that runs the entire library’s acquisitions, cataloging, circulation, tracking and public interface for users. This will be a huge cost, and will involve the closing of the libraries to accomplish.
Databases and online resources now available to all library patrons will be gone. That includes Downloadable eBooks through OverDrive and NetLibrary, all newspapers, homework help, history and career databases to name a few. I counted access to nearly 50 databases on the LA County page. All these databases cost money, and will not only be a startup cost for the library but an ongoing cost for the continued lifetime use of these databases. Printouts from these databases are free for the first 10 pages. Will that change?
And there’s more – like who will buy the books and decide what titles will be added to our collections under outsourcing? What are the ongoing costs to become a member of SCLC, and what will the City be paying for an online Book Catalog with OCLC to replace our present County Online Catalog system – because, you see, these will also be new costs that haven’t been mentioned.
One last interesting note –in the Agenda they talk about the “Professional Quality of Staff and Services of Contract Employees.” It goes on to use Moorpark staff as an example. Well, yesterday I found a job listing placed by LSSI for a “Young Adult Librarian (Moorpark, Ca) for only 20 hours a week. The ad was on CRAIGSLIST………now that should bring in quality applicants.
All my information was gathered from conversations with City Administrators, Mayors, Library Directors, Directors of Community Services, Library Board of Trustees at City run libraries and everyday librarians, as well as good, old-fashion research.
So you see why we can’t say we’ve got all the information we need to make this decision, and let’s just take a vote at Tuesday’s City Council meeting?
“Libraries exist because our society values the free flow of ideas and opinion. They are not about profit. They promote access, equity and diversity. America’s public libraries are the building blocks of democracy, valued for their comprehensiveness, currency, openness, and multiplicity of viewpoints.
America’s libraries have a trust: they are both the first source and the ultimate repository of knowledge. Their core value is to deliver the materials and services that undergird the public’s right to information. That is why public libraries are geared to choosing quality, equity and effectiveness over “efficiency.” That is why most of the collection of a good library is not in circulation; it is a resource for those whose interests extend beyond what is in vogue. It is this “inefficiency” that distinguishes libraries from bookstores. Library services are not designed to generate a profit but rather to provide vital services to the public.”
Jeanne Wingate, The Library of Texas. In response to “The selling of the public library; It’s not just ‘outsourcing,’ it’s privatization.” Patricia Glass Schuman.
I believe that Tuesday night’s City Council meeting should be the “beginning” of the library discussion not the end. There is so much more….
Cheryl:
As a member of the “editorial board” of SCVTalk thank you very much for your detailed and knowledgable post. It will be interesting to see on Tuesday who “speaks up” in public comment about the mooted City takeover since all the opinion thus far from actual library users has been to continue with the present system.
Darren Hernandez confirmed with me on Friday that interlibrary loans of non-book materials (i.e. DVD’s and books on CD, of which I “consume” about 85 per year) will NOT occur under the mooted system but not to worry: The City will have so much extra money they will purchase the books on CD that I want! That and $2 will get me a black coffee at Starbucks.
From all the thoughtful discussion the whole City library takeover is turning into something that happens in a cluster, and not a bomb.
@Tim, “since all the opinion thus far from actual library users has been to continue with the present system.”
You must only be reading select posts Tim. I am a library patron and also post on scvtalk.com. There are others as well.
I’ll mark you down as “one” Berta, but other posters in favor have not explained how they use the library.
Cheryl, you’ve hit on a very interesting connection. You say the City of Moorpark broke away from the Ventura County libraries and contracted with CSSI. Do you find it interesting that Moorpark and Santa Clarita share the same City Attorney Joseph M. Montes, who works for the Downtown L.A. law firm, Burke Williams & Sorensen?
Mr. Montes has been City Attorney for Moorpark for several years, so it’s likely that he has been exposed to contractual dealings with CSSI. I wonder if he’s publicly disclosed that fact to Santa Claritans?
Bell-a Clarita.
Brain fade. LSSI not CSSI.
Our new closing comment instead of ): or (:
Bell-a Clarita.
@J, good gravy woman is there ANYTHING that is not a nefarious conspiracy involving Santa Clarita according to you?
Costal Sage–I’m hoping YOU will speak up at the council meeting. We need someone like you, who has bothered to check facts. I had no idea about the cozy attorney relationship. I wonder how much of a bonus he got for landing LSSI a contract?
BTW: you can to to the City Clerk’s office and see all the documents you want; there is no 10 day waiting period, unless you are asking for copies.
@Charlene, Coastal Sage lives in Nevada so I doubt she will appear to share her “facts”. She is an attorney who has litigated against the City on behalf of her “clients” several times and has some questionable unethical activities of her own.
According to her and her “friends”, everything that pertains to City Hall is a conspiracy of some sort. Sour grapes against Joe Montes perhaps?
Furthermore, no one has “landed” any contract yet!
I’ll pay her air fare.
Thanks, Tim. I know I am late in coming to this conversation, but as I said “Don’t Leave Town!” I also use the County Online Book Catalog to order anywhere from 2-4 audio books on CD a month. 30 seconds online to find what I want and place my order, an email telling me it has arrived at Newhall Library within a matter of days, and another email telling me my CDs are due back in 3 days and that I have the opportunity to go online and renew my materials. The system is amazing.
I did send these same words to the Signal last Friday morning, but so far it has not been printed. I plan to post it under your library column from today to make sure my info touches as many as possible.
I will be attending the meeting Tuesday night but unfortunately I am a better writer than public speaker. No, I’ll turn in my written comments and sit back and listen to those that prefer to do the public speaking.
Cheryl, PLEASE sign up to speak at the meeting. This isn’t speech class; write down your thoughts and ideas and just read them.
I too understand the difference between “have access” and knowing that I’m going to either pay loan fees or more in gas. My family of 7 orders at least 35 books a week; I NEED those audio books for my long commutes, and SCLC libraries do NOT inter-library loan movies or books. Darren Hernandez neglected to add this at the CCAC. Just one more reason we need to slow down and really, really look at this issue. Like someone said, if it’s a good idea this year, it will still be a good idea next year.
Dave – Since you mentioned earlier that your family blew through the local collection, you have about 2,000 items trucked annually to the SCV and then back to each host library. Do you believe this is sustainable?
At last Wednesday’s Canyon Country Advisory Committee, Darren Hernandez presented information on the proposed Santa Clarita City takeover of our library services from the County. This issue will be discussed, and possibly decided, at this Tuesday’s City Council Meeting after the Public Hearing for agenda item 15.
The short story goes like this. City Staff is claiming; “Under City Operation, the City could significantly enhance public library services for the City of Santa Clarita” at a lower cost. But when Mr. Hernandez was asked the question; “Will the city commit to providing, at a minimum, the same level of services, at no increase in cost, to all library users from both within the city and unincorporated county?” he did not answer in the affirmative. Instead, Mr. Hernandez told us the current plan is, after the decision to takeover library services is made, City Staff will poll City residents to find out what services the community thought were important and ensure those services would be provided.
Now I ask you, how could the City Staff know they can provide enhanced library services at a lower cost if they have not yet determined what services will be provided? It is a safe assumption that under the City’s plan the service mix will be different than those currently provided by the County. Until the city can provide an exacting list of library services currently provided by the County and match them to the list of services the City intends to provide, we are just being feed a very disingenuous “smoke and mirrors” presentation.
I believe that we all want what is best for the Santa Clarita Valley. I urge you to go to this Tuesday’s City Council Meeting and speak on agenda item 15. Demand the council, not rush to judgment. Let’s take the time to have staff prepare a detailed accurate plan. Then, give the County time to evaluate the City’s proposal and respond.
Then and only then, will our City Council Members be able to make an honest informed decision that will be in all of our best interest. Otherwise, we will just end up with whatever City Staff decides to provide.
Alan:
When Alan Ferdman, Lynn Plambeck, Jeff Wilson, Tim Myers and Michael Antonovich agree on an issue, it is time to abandon received wisdom from City Staff and proceed with extreme caution.
@Tim, not so surprising when each of you mentioned has your own reasons for advocating against any City proposals regarding more local control.
The only surprise to me is Lynne Plambeck. Scope was very involved in forcing developers to contribute to funds dedicated for local libraries much as Quimby is for local parks. I would think Lynne would want to have local control of those funds instead of allowing our excess taxes and fees collected as library money to be sent all over LA County including potentially for Newhall Ranch and other new developments within the County.
Berta:
I only advocate against local control when it is stupid!
@ Tim, I think that is a matter of opinion.
Berta:
I only advocate against local control when I THINK it is stupid!
Umm, was the Riverside County Library person who wrote the white paper wholly independent of LSSI?
As some may remember from my previous comments on the issue, I don’t think the privatization is necessarily a bad idea, but I think it can easily be implemented badly. And before taking the report of one system’s experience with LSSI seriously, I’d want to be doggone sure it wasn’t written by, for, or at the behest of, the firm it’s evaluating.
On the plus side, the SCLC and Espresso Book printing sound like positives.
If the City takes over the library system – they tell us nothing will change. We will still have items shipped or delivered to us – just from other City libraries instead of the County libraries. So sustainability with each system remains the same.
“So sustainability with each system remains the same”
At least in the short run as wean off the need to have 200,000 books trucked here annually. It will allow access to closer Ventura County collections, reducing truck miles.
What doesn’t remain the same is that the library system’s future will be at the direction of the city. As the winner of the 2010 Smarter City Award from the Natural Resources Defense Council, Santa Clarita has a recent track record in sustainable practices.
The Newhall library will be built with a LEED-certified tiny carbon footprint because of city leadership not county. We should expect nothing less in operation of the library system.
Again – there are only 3 places in California that use LSSI to run their libraries. Berta keeps mentioning Temecula as if it is a separate library system. It is not – It is in the Riverside County Library System which outsources all their libraries to LSSI. I am familiar with this Riverside branch because my grandchildren live in Temecula and I have a library card there. Shasta Library up North and Moorpark Library, which the Signal was nice enough to let the City write about on today’s front page. I continue to question why the best City libraries, like Pasadena, South Pasadena, Glendale, San Marino, Monrovia, Beverly Hills, Arcadia, Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach, Sierra Madre, Santa Monica and more, use their own City employees to run their libraries rather than outsourcing to LSSI (the only company that does this.)
@Dexter – I have to bust your sustainable bubble when you say “It will allow access to closer Ventura County collections, reducing truck miles.” In the SCLC cooperative that we would become a member of – our books will be trucked to us from Orange County, i.e. Buena Park Library, Newport Beach Library, Fullerton Library, Mission Viejo Library, Anaheim Library and Yorba Linda Public Library to name a few and there are more. In LA County we have been told that we will still be a part of that interlibrary system as well. And as a side – all of the above cities run their own libraries with City employees as well – no outsourcing or privatization.
My question continues to be “Why are we in such a hurry to outsource our libraries to a private company?” And as a private firm, LSSI does not have to be transparent. It does not disclose its budget and the residents it serves do not know how their money is used. What we do know is that some of our tax dollars will be going to LSSI executives in Germantown, Maryland.
In January of 2002 the Florida House of Representatives did a “Report on Privatization of Public Libraries – Pros and Cons.” In this study the following libraries contracted with LSSI due to “multiple problems requiring immediate, intensive action:” Riverside County, Calabasas, Hemet, Jersey City, NJ, Linden, NJ, Fargo, No. Dakota and Lancaster, Texas. In reading LSSI’s webpage today you will find that every one of these city libraries no longer contracts with LSSI save for Riverside. Why is that? Did Darren Hernandez contact these libraries and ask why they stopped contracting with LSSI? Because I did. “LSSI promised the moon to get the contract, delivered for about the first 6-12 months, then started pulling back services, personnel, etc.” Mayor of Hemet at time of contract cancellation with LSSI.
We do have a great City and I am really concerned as to why they will not slow down, and look at using our own City employees to run our library system rather than outsourcing and privatizing.
@Cheryl Phillips, for a former librarian you have selective reading skills. The City has said why they do not propose AT THIS TIME to have City Staff run the libraries, BECAUSE IT COSTS MORE MONEY!
The cities which contracted with LSSI and did not renew their contracts with them also DID NOT REJOIN COLA OR VCLS or whatever County system but opted to bring library services in house at their respective cities. They made that decision after they learned and better understood how to run a library after hiring LSSI to run theirs and felt at the end of the contract term their City funds were adequate to take on hiring additional City Staff and all benefits, etc costs.
You still have not addressed who has paid for the Jo Ann Darcy Canyon Country Branch and is paying for the new Newhall Library Branch.
Nor have you answered where OUR excess taxes and fees are being spent.
I understand you are a union sympathizer. I get it but honestly how about dealing with the facts. Whom did you say you currently work for?
The cities that opt to remain as part of the COLA library system are not comparable to our City in any way.
By the way, ALL libraries in Ventura County will be part of the SCLC cooperative in the near future, whether they remain as part of VCLS or opt out.
You also never answered my other question: What guarantee do you have that COLA libraries will continue to offer same days, hours of operation or any FREE borrowing services?
There are no guarantees in life, Berta.
@Cheryl Phillips, I can guarantee you two things right now.
1.You have not answered any of my questions.
2.The City of Santa Clarita would retain the same ability to bring local library services in house at the end of any contract or termination of contract with LSSI as the City of Calabasas has.