Director's
Meeting
Group
1
Facilitator:
Connie Sutton
Question # 1
In
light of the fact that state and most local library funding is not guaranteed
by law in West Virginia, how do we ensure a consistent level of pubic library
service throughout the state?
Our
approach was to look at what in the working draft of the AR's addressed ensuing
a consistent level of public library service and to comment on that.
2.6
Consortium
This
is mentioned in definitions but isn't really addressed elsewhere in the AR's.
Group
believed the AR's should:
- encourage
consortiums
- further define
consortiums
- WVLC should give
formal approval is appropriate
3.3b
Three
year development plan
Group
agreed with this.
3.4
"local tax-based funds"
Group
strongly believe this should be "local funds" not "local tax-based funds"
In
the 2nd session we added that 50% of "local funds" should be local
tax-based
3.8
Hours of operation
Regarding
"6 hours per week after
Prefer
4 hours and after
Section 3.13 Continuing
Education.
Group
agreed continuing education for library staff is important.
There
should be a definition of continuing education as many people look at 3 hours
of continuing education and think immediately of a 3 hour college course.
"full time library support staff" as written in the working
draft is confusing as different libraries have different definitions of what is
full time. This could get even more
confused for libraries that are open less than 40 hours a week where under some
definitions no one would be considered full time.
Suggested
language to replace this is "permanent library service staff"
What
qualifies for continuing education should be addressed in the AR's.
There
should be established procedures for quality control in the determination of
what is or is not continuing education.
It
was suggested that a committee be formed that would consist of members from the
WVLC and the WVLA.
It
was agreed that advance approval of a continuing education selection was
appropriate.
5.1
This
specifies GIA distributed on a per capita basis.
Group
liked this.
6.2d
Library
service providers to annually evaluate the collections, fiscal management and
operations of each assigned library and report the results to each library and
the WVLC
Group
was generally OK with 6.2d
Section
8
Establishing New Libraries.
8.1b How the library will be
funded.
Group
believed this section should include more specifics on the money to operate the
new library and how much.
Question #2
Currently
there are no major consequences when a library doesn't meet the administrative
rules and regulations. How can we ensure
that the public library service standards are met without negative
consequences?
3.4a
"Local
tax-based funds in the previous fiscal year are equal to or greater than the
Grants-in Aid amount.
As
mentioned in question one:
Group
strongly believe this should be "local funds" not "local tax-based funds"
In
the 2nd session we added that 50% of "local funds" should be local
tax-based
Regarding
what happens if the local funds are not equal to or greater than the GIA
amount.
If
the local funds increase by no less than 10% each year there should not be any
penalties or reduction in GIA.
3.5
Operating
income should replace operating expenditures.
Special Note
I
am frankly not sure if the portion that follows was from my group or is from my
notes of what another group said.
If
a library meets all requirements except 3.4 then that library should get a minimum
state GIA of $2.00 per capita. and should have a 3
years to get the local funding up to the required amount.
If
a library in penalized and does not receive their full GIA where does the
unused money go? This should be
addressed in the AR's
Suggestion
was that the money go to the
3.5
Maintenance of Effort
Liked a 3 year average.
WV
reality is that local revenue is not increasing.
Suggestion for operating expenditures per capits.
Adjustment for decrease in population and for local tax
revenue on a per capita basis.
Director's
Roundtable ---- Meeting on WVLC's
Administrative Rules & Regulations
July 15, 2005
Comments from
Group 2 - Group Facilitator: Brian Raitz
1. Question 1 ---- How to ensure a consistent
level of service throughout the state?
a. The
Public Library Standards should be revised and officially accepted so that they
can be used to gauge whether a public library is at the appropriate level of
service. The AR&R's could incorporate these
standards to ensure compliance.
b. There
could be more equitable funding from state Grants-In-Aid. It could have a
component where every public library receives a minimum level of funding.
c. The
d. In
the matter of funding level compliance in the AR&R's,
all requirements should be based on a per capita basis of funding.
e. In
meeting the required level of local funding in the AR&R's,
all local income should count, not just tax dollars.
f.
In evaluating whether a local public library
meets the required level of funding in order to receive Grants-In-Aid, a
three-year average should be used (the preceding two years plus the current
year). This way a library is not immediately penalized if funding levels begin
to drop and a few years leeway provides time for the library to work to bring
up funding levels.
g. In
deciding the levels of local funding and the acceptable per capita levels
required, it would be beneficial to look at guidelines on the ideal per capita
levels required for various populations. The American Library Association may
provide this information. The reason this is important is that as the
population rises, a lesser per capita amount is required to provide library
service.
h. It
is extremely hard to use service standards as gauges for receiving
Grants-In-Aid since most service standards (i.e.- circulation statistics,
collection size, attendance at programs, etc.) can be falsely reported and it
is too time-consuming, labor-intensive, and costly for the WVLC staff to
complete evaluation visits to public libraries in the state. Therefore any
service standards used to determine eligibility for Grants-In-Aid or meeting of
an acceptable level of service must be standards that cannot easily be
falsified. Examples of these standards includes number of hours opened weekly,
whether the Director holds an MLS, amount of local funding, staffing levels,
participation in interlibrary loan, and public internet and computer access to
online databases, etc.
2. How can we ensure that the
public library service standards are met without negative consequences?
a. The
current financial formula to qualify to receive Grants-In-Aid in section 3.4 of
the AR&R's should be based on all local funds,
not just the tax-based funds.
b. Grants-In-Aid
could have a base amount (ex.: $2.00 per capita) that all public libraries (who
meet all the other eligibility requirements-outside of 3.3 of the current AR&R's) receive. As local funding rises above $2.00 per
capita, state Grants-In-Aid would match the local per capita funding. (Ex.: A
library's local funding is $3.54 so it receives $3.54 in GIA while a library
with local funding of $1.21 per capita receives $2.00 in GIA). The purpose
behind this funding method is to encourage local funding to rise.
c. It
is not possible to ensure that the public library service standards are met
without having possible negative consequences for noncompliance. Especially in
light of the basic assumption that all citizens of
d. Unused
Grants-In-Aid, due to some libraries not qualifying to receive GIA and/or some
not getting the full matching GIA per capita (outlined above), would go to the
nearest Service Center library to provide service for residents of that service
area whose library is ineligible to receive its full GIA or any GIA at all.
e. In
light of the steadily declining population in most of
