Anti-takeover library activists have received several pieces of documentation from City Hall regarding the library takeover this summer.
We saw portions of these documents in the City Council’s August 24 Agenda -and they may have been available if you went and asked for them at City Hall- but I’m putting them online for you to review.
First up is LSSI’s Technical Proposal for Santa Clarita’s libraries. The 85 page document contains LSSI’s ideas for running Santa Clarita’s three libraries, including estimates on the cost of the libraries and various recommendations, like internet filtering (which currently exists in the LA County SCV library system) and self-check kiosks. On filtering, LSSI recommends the City of Santa Clarita create an internet filter policy for its three libraries. That’s a debate I’m interested in seeing.
On staffing, the document states that LSSI “proposes to staff the three libraries with a total of 58.5 FTE (Full Time Equivalents): 5 FTE in central services and overall administrative roles, 21 FTE in Valencia library, 16.5 in the new Old Town Newhall Library and 16 FTE in the Canyon Country library.” I’m not sure how those numbers compare to existing staffing at our libraries. The document notes these estimates could change before the contract starts.
Notably, the cover letter on the Technical Proposal is dated June 10, 2010, weeks before the library takeover idea was first floated by Councilwoman Laurie Ender during a Council meeting. She followed up with a Signal editorial on the matter on July 16. LSSI was not mentioned at the time. Four days later, I first mentioned the library takeover story and predicted the City would select LSSI. The RFP for the library contract was released in early August and proposals were due August 16. LSSI was the only respondent and won the contract just eight days later at the August 24 council meeting.
The letter -if accurate- shows that City staff and LSSI were discussing options much earlier in the summer than I had previously thought.
Another interesting section in the document pertains to LSSI’s implementation timeline, particularly after the contract is awarded, but before it starts (meaning now, the contract starts July 1, 2011):
- LSSI says it will “meet with interested incumbent library staff members” to explain LSSI’s hiring process
- Define staffing configurations for each location
- Interview, make job offers and hire new applicants for libraries
- “Discuss transition from public to private employment” (ie Frank Pezzanite’s quote to the NYT that librarians will actually “have to work” now)
- Hold introductory meetings with library volunteers
Moreover, the document gives some insight into how LSSI will manage Santa Clarita City Library’s collection:
Research suggests that the two most important predictors of library customer satisfaction are the availability of items wanted and the helpfulness of library staff. In consultation with public officials, LSSI will build a collection that is responsive to the needs of the community,current, authoritative, and available in appropriate formats. LSSI will create a Collection Development Plan for the library, with goals for materials in each sub-collection.LSSI’s Collection Management Team will review the existing collections in the three libraries to assess the age, condition, and subject relevancy of each collection to meet community needs.This review will use data such as historical circulation and collection usage statistics, and basic demographic data about the community.
So long Charles Darwin, hello Twilight!
In addition, there’s a section in the document on local blog discussions about intra-library loans:
LSSI has read blog comments by library users during the current conversation about Santa Clarita separating from LACoPL, several of whom stressed their dependence on materials borrowed from other branch libraries within that system and their fear that without access to these additional materials, Santa Clarita’s libraries will have little to offer users. The City has projected a substantial (22%) increase in the library’s budget for materials; this, plus an upcoming opening day collection for the new Newhall Library, will result in an influx of new, popular material into the City’s libraries.
Finally, the document says SCVers will likely need to get new library cards (LSSI says it has a graphic artist who can design attractive ones), and the company recommends the City investigate using RFID technology to track books, rather than old fashioned bar codes, saying, “The RFID tags are so effective that users can place a stack of several items on a self-check machine, and the machine will automatically check each item out to the patron’s library card.”
Read more:
Next up is the cost proposal. Much of this is boilerplate corporate-contract type stuff, but the estimates for the costs of running the three libraries -and the increasing costs for the Newhall library as it comes online- are in here.
In the huge comments thread on the New York Times story post I did on Monday, some activists are saying the City is refusing to release other documents, citing “attorney-client” privilege. That’s unconfirmed at this point but food for thought.
Meanwhile, one SCVTalk reader and homeschooling mom was so angered by the library takeover, she made an appointment to go and speak with Supervisor Antonovich. You can read what happened to her here.
Loading ...
Just want to respond to the notion of “building a collection”. This will come as a shock to Weste and McLean, et al., but people were writing books before 2008. About 2/3 of the books I read are out of print; if you ain’t got um you ain’t getting um. The county has them and always will. The city doesn’t and never will. Barnes & Noble is a book store like Jack-in-the-box is a restaurant. What I can’t figure out is, what does Kellar need more time to think about? He seems more intellegent then yesterday’s turtle.
“what does Kellar need more time to think about?”
I’ve known Bob Kellar for more than 10 years. He doesn’t like to get the bum’s rush from fellow Council members, City staff or third parties. From the time frame show in the documents, and discussed above, it seems that is what happened behind the scenes. Having watched the City Council meeting where the vote occurred, clearly Councilman Kellar wanted time for meaningful responses to the public’s comments, and accommodation of their concerns to some extent.
However, we’ll never know what Councilman Kellar’s desired route to a decision would have produced. The library conversion plan is going forward like a juggernaut, so at this point Councilman Kellar does not have to think about the basic premise of the conversion. He needs to be evaluating the consequences of what his fellow Council members decided, and how best to address the concerns of library patrons when LSSI takes over.
Wow Jeff, thank you so much for this write-up. It was really well done. Thank goodness we have your blog to keep us informed because the City really isn’t interested in doing it.
The cost of the new library and the take over of the system , is but one example of how inept this council is when it comes to managing taxpayer dollars. Marsha, is anyone home? You fight to stop the state from taking city tax dollars, but you have no problem taking redevelopment money from the state! Stick with what you know, focus on stopping the next dump proposal. Oh wait, is there a new dump proposal?
Amen to that last link to that mother’s comment. She describes our situation exactly.
Thanks, Fred.
So Lori Rivas actually did some due diligence to figure out how the local libraries would work in “real life.” Lori, don’t you realize you have to be ‘balanced?” (This is met as sarcasm, by the way. In the NotAFerryFan video Val Thomas and Cam Noltemeyer come off as rational and reasonable. The elected officials come off as whiny.)
Sometimes I feel like I am balancing on the edge of sanity…does that count?
Lori:
After your recent experiences no one would blame you if you started banging your head against the wall!
I am trying to follow along here, but need some help. There are three county libraries in Santa clarita. The city is building a new library in newhall. Would this replace the county run newhal library, or is it supposed to be a city run library?
When the takeover is complete and the Newhall Library is finished…
1. The new Newhall Library will be City-run, which in our case, means LSSI-run. Had the city not opted out, it would be run by the County (but owned by the City)
2. The old Newhall Library will be closed. It will remain the property of the county.
3. The Canyon Country Library will be City-run. Since it was built by the City, it will be city-owned.
4. The Valencia Library will likely be purchased by the city and run by the city. My understanding is that the city doesn’t *have* to buy that library. The city may opt to build a new building in or around Valencia. If the city does not purchase the Valenica Library, the county will turn it into something else.
5. After this transition is complete, the only County-run library in the valley will be the facility in Castaic.
On June 10, 2010 LSSI sent almost identical Responses to both Santa Clarita and San Joaquin. San Joaquin due date was June 10, 2010. Santa Clarita’s Request for Proposals was not even published until August 4.
On July 13, a full month later, SCV Council passed a resolution to consider what to do about the library in the most vague terms, Ender @ http://www.scvtv.com/html/citycouncil071310-1of6btv.html , very beginning and again at about 40 minutes when she proposes resolution (not clearly defined) to be consider library issue on August 24 with public comment after summer break.
August 4, City publishes RFP.
August 16, purchasing agent for City documents receipt of RFP.
August 24, City Council has public hearing and votes to hired LSSI for Library management.
So the City was in receipt of the Response to the RFP one month prior to the Library resolution, and almost two months before the RFP was actually noticed and published.
Exactly how can you answer a question before it is asked? (Respond to a Request for Proposal before it was ostensibly even written?) Obviously City staff and Council knew where they were going before they got on the bus…and were talking to LSSI about driving that bus. Everyone had to be talking to everyone else,—sometime long before the public was let in on the full plan,—like August 24, 2010.
Council seems to pride itself on being a model city in California. Is this the way local government is suppose to inform the public and demonstrate due diligence?
I just listened to Laurie Ender’s request on 7/13/10 council meeting that the library issue be put on the agenda for 8/24/10, and she also recommended extensive community outreach. Where was this outreach? Were the council members just talking to their friends and neighbors, aka yes men? Where was this public discussion? Did they all just go on vacation, and the library went on the back burner? These questions are half-rhetorical, because something appears rotten in the state of Denmark.
My jaw just drops each time I hear the council members speak on this issue. I am truly flabbergasted.
Lori:
Here was the “community” outreach. City Staff contacted folks at Pravda, er The Signal and got a favorable editorial. City Staff contacted myself and Jeff to talk us into it and got unfavorable editorials and coverage. The End.
So, why do you and Jeff rate as representatives of the SCV library community? Why did the city staff seek your opinions, in particular, and not, say, the opinions of folks leaving a library with tons of books in tow? I know that within my circles, folks are practically all heavy users of the county library system, and we all could give a pretty clear snapshot of which library elements are vital.
In other words, how do me and my peeps, or any other SCV’ers, get on the city council’s radar as community members worthy of opinions?
That is a half-rhetorical question, because I know that the squeaky wheel gets the oil, but when do the quieter majority count? Never, I guess. It’s all about being vocal.
Sigh.
“So, why do you and Jeff rate as representatives of the SCV library community? Why did the city staff seek your opinions, in particular, and not, say, the opinions of folks leaving a library with tons of books in tow? ”
Well, you could start a blog for one.
Or you could just get involved. I’m curious, did you attend the 8/24 council meeting? Who did you vote for in the April 2010 Council race?
this situation proves we all haven’t been paying attention.
Yes, I attended and spoke at the 8/24 city council meeting.
Yes, I am a consistent voter, and have often engaged local candidates personally, asking their opinions on issues important to me. I honestly do not remember who I voted for last time around, but I have consistently voted against Ferry and Ender — she showed up at my doorstep, asking for votes, her first time up for election, and we had an interesting conversation that guaranteed she would never get my vote.
I have been involved in the community throughout my 17 years living in SCV, though I am a relative newbie to local politics. Mostly, I have been involved in leadership in non-profits and homeschooling groups, but I have attended various political meetings through the years.
My question was not meant to be accusatory. Please forgive my ignorance, but I am really asking what local roles Tim and Jeff fill that have garnered the council’s attention as representative of the community.
Besides this blog, obviously.
And it’s not just the tons of book they may leave with that are here, there’s all that stuff we can now get delivered from any LA County Library.
I think the problem is that we have just been slapped in the face with how the City actually works with something we all took for granted. After we get this fixed, we need to start paying attention and make sure it doesn’t happen again.
And paying attention starts with me…
Lori:
When Jeff and I reacted with visceral hostility to the takeover around the usage issues you and others raised, they knew the jig was up and they were just going to have to sit through hours of abuse to enact it. At that point they just decided to blow off community outreach and take the harsh medicine.
First, this is a great public service, making these public documents so readily available to the public.
I argued when this issue first came up that privatization of sources is not at all inherently bad, but has to be done right, and one of the things I emphasized was the need for a competitive bidding process. So it’s particularly disturbing that the City was communicating with LSSI so early on, before they even floated the idea to the public, and then gave an impossibly short time for the RFP, meaning only a company that had been in the loop early could have time to submit one (writing an RFP takes a lot of time for researching the particular details of the service to be privatized–it can’t be done in two weeks).
The City has definitely failed to abide by good governing practices, by locking into a single service provider at the beginning of the process, then misleading the public about having previously been working with that provider. It’s probably not illegal, but it’s both unethical and not suited to taking care of the public’s interests. I’ll probably use this as a textbook example the next time I teach public administration.
The one thing, I am ashamed to admit, is that I have not been paying attention.
That is why I have been doing my best in the last two weeks to gather and share documents and information where ever I can. I hope everyone else will jump in and do the same. The City Clerk’s office will be more than glad to help you get the information you want, I am sure. mcusick@santa-clarita.com
I thank SCVTalk for publishing these.
I think that whatever the outcome is, that we should unite to get a commitment from every SCV elected official to make what they do transparent. See http://www.sjgov.org/supportserv/bidrecap.aspx for an example of how that should be done at minimum.
Also you can see almost the exact same bid proposals there for San Joaquin as provided to SCV by LSSI. Notice the dates on the cover letters for San Joaquin and above for SCV.
Proof, apparently, that SCV was in receipt of a Response before it had even made a Request…
Let the sunshine in, light is not a partisan issue. Time to work together as reasonable adults…
Oh, I see on the other thread someone says COLA will still own the Newhall Library, so if that’s correct my “don’t buy carpeting for a house that’s about to be foreclosed” argument is off-target. Still, unless COLA has a particular reason to want to compete with the city’s privatized libraries, it still doesn’t make sense for them to put the money into Newhall instead of another library in their system.
But from my political scientist’s perspective, it would be great if they did fix up Newhall and compete directly with the city/LSSI. It would have a three-fold beneficial effect: it would allow the public a better choice of providers (free choice is good); it would give an incentive to each to provide the best services (competition is good); and it would allow us to objectively judge which is superior (knowledge is good).
Alas, it probably won’t happen.
COLA will still own the land and the building. But the library will no longer be available—as in closed forever. The closest Count library will be Castaic. So if you want to order books on the internet, you will have to go there to pick them up.
So just to clarify–if I currently hold a COLA library card, I may still, as a resident of LA County, use their library system, right? I just want to make sure. It’s a bummer to travel for my books, but I’m pretty sure a lot of what I want/need won’t be in this library of “new, popular material.”
Thanks again for keeping me informed….oh, and for starting that list the other day of gems in the SCV.
With a County card, you can use ANY County library. The nearest for us will be Acton and Castaic. Although there is so much movement for city council recall, lawsuits to stop the privatization, etc., I’m betting we’ll keep our local libraries in the hands of County.
Trogdor:
The actual Education Code section which allows the City to buy the County libraries, and receive library related tax revenue derived from City residents, actually permits the County to refuse to allow residents of the withdrawing City to use the County libraries’ services.
It is unknown whether the County will withdraw City resident’s privilege to use County library services after July 1, 2011. That decision could come in 2011, or in the future when the County’s library budget becomes even tighter.
So after July 11, 2010 while you will be welcome to sit on a chair in Castaic Library and look at the books, don’t count on permanently being able to take one home or on permanently being allowed to use the inter-library loan system for books in other County libraries.
There are two problems here, one is that it’s been only the last two years when the money to operate the three local libraries was less than the tax revenues collected in the area. Thus LA county was paying more since the City’s incorporation for the operation of the library.
The bigger problem is the question of what ‘operate’ means. If I have a choice of a library that operates with 7.1 million books, or a new one with only a few hundred thousand, which is the better operation for me, the library user?
I thought all you had to do was live in California to get a County card. So you mean if someone at County sees my Santa Clarita, Inc. address, I’ll get my card cancelled? Whoa; hope the city council is prepared for more law suits. This is in no way “better services.” Jerks.
Just to clarify, in case one does not read the follow-up to my allusive meeting the Antonovich — the date confusion was NOT on the part of Antonovich’s staff, but rather an email problem with the folks who made the appointment with Anotonovich’s staff.
Also, I was asked to attend this meeting, based on my original comments at the city council meeting in August. I did not spearhead this effort, but was very willing to go along, and speak publicly.
And thanks for posting these documents — I agree that is a great public service. I am going to wade through the documents tonight.
Unfortunately, most of this is “boilerplate” meaning both the Request, published by the City, and the Response, (as above) are the same, no matter what is being asked for by the City, or what entity is being responded to by LSSI. Public meetings must be done before such decisions are made, so that the needs of the community, and interests such as yours Lori can be completely and respectfully considered.
Santa Clarita residents are invited to join Save Our Library. SOL will file on suit on Mon. 10/4 to enjoin privatizing of the library. A membership meeting will be held on 10/9. Interested persons can contact me at SOL@socal.rr.com, 661-50-3091, 661-250-1767 (fax).
Don
Providence College and Georgetown Law? I am impressed. No, I take that back, I am VERY impressed.
Hoya Saxa! to Don
Love that the Newhall Library and it’s funding shenanigans, is featured on the cover of the proposals. We always knew that library was what this money deal was all about. I’m sure they get a laugh seeing that on the cover, too. All the way to the bank.
In regards to staffing there are currently 78 staff plus regional administration at Valencia. Before teh recent nation-wide budget crisis Valencia alone had more than 60 staff. How does LSSI intend to increase hours and days of operation with fewer staff?
Jason, it’s easy to increase staff when you’re not paying professionals. I mean, all they’re gonna give us is someone to hang around to turn the lights off.
We hope the city council can afford better lawyers. From what we hear, there are more law suits being filed against the city for their smoke-and-mirrors library theft. Here’s hoping County is sitting up and paying attention: it’s looking more and more like they’re going to get to stay.
As for the promise of more hours, look at the proposal: more hours or “whatever is most expedient.” They already have an out; we give it one year before the hours are cut. But then again, it only takes one minimum wage employee to turn the lights off.
Yes. But more hours is hardly the bottom line. Access to books and information is—that is what a library is, and what tax dollars for libraries should be pay for. Who has looked seriously at that question, Ender and Mclean in a few library sub-committee meetings—with who and when and how many and….?
Now they plan to have meetings, after the contract has been awarded and our ties to the County cut?
@Jeff two links of interest regarding Santa Clarita Library issue:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_13C and
http://pvlddirectorsblog.typepad.com/kathy/2010/09/call-me-a-heretic.html
It’s 2010, and we need to start thinking what a library of the future can be. Hiring a contractor may work in some places if a library is nothing more than a physical repository for books, owned by a particular library in a small town, to be loaned out. But the world is bigger than that now. In our case, the connection with COLA gives us 7.1 million books, many of which that are older and not available anywhere else but in a library. But we can now check them out online and get them in a few days. More is available online for download to your computer or Ipod. The way we get information is changing. This contract with LSSI does not ensure that we will end up with the same access to what we now get through COLA. Much less ensure that the contract will be adaptable to future needs and possibilities.
The money for this great egowork of a library, that appears destined to be built,— a monument to what?, might better be invested in WIFI for the City residents. The world is going digital, books should always be used and cherished, but soon most of the written world will be available digitally by WIFI. These issues should have be discussed before the decision to build this monument and cutting links to COLA.
What I’d still like to know is why is it ok for LSSI management and Santa Clarita city workers to collect those big pensions, but not the library staff? County doesn’t even participate in PERS.
Here, here! I find it ESPECIALLY interesting/ironic that the much-maligned CalPERS is THE pension provider for City of Santa Clarita employees. Meanwhile those “overpaid, loafing, government-worker librarians” (much sarcasm) have a relatively modest pension plan administered by LACERA. Side note: LACERA didn’t suffer nearly as bad as CalPERS during the recent economic downturn because the plan managers opted not to buy into the ridiculous real estate market and all the accompanying “exotic” (toxic!) mortgage products.
And for all those mid- to late-career professionals at LSSI who brag about not going into their field for the pensions; well, LSSI has only been in the public library business for 13 years so you can bet a goodly chunk of their management likely put in many years at various public agencies prior to their tenure at LSSI, more than enough time to earn a pension. So of course it’s very easy (albeit disingenuous ) for them to claim they’re “not in it for the pensions.”
If you are a professional investor, when CalPERS gets into an investment that is a STRONG sell signal.