Here is how Wikipedia describes the Lancaster Library System: “The purpose of the system is to bring together its 14 member public libraries to plan and create a cost-effective network of technology, facilities and resources to meet the informational, educational and recreational needs of the residents of Lancaster County. The Library System ensures that a network of support services is provided to member libraries.”
An Intelligencer Journal New Era article “Library officials fret over funding” reports:
“The Library System of Lancaster County is looking for new sources of funding.
“But two officials from Lancaster Public Library, centered at 125 N. Duke St., voiced concerns Wednesday that fundraising efforts by the system will tap resources that might otherwise give to the system’s member libraries.
“…LPL board treasurer Karen Haley Field said the system is stepping into ‘a minefield’ by seeking to expand its revenue sources.
“’There is already confusion in the public’s mind’ over the breakdown between the system and individual libraries, Field said. If both entities begin soliciting funds in the name of library services, she said, the public will become even more confused — and funding opportunities could be lost…
She is rebutted at the end of the article:
“’Will there be some angst? Absolutely,’ [System board member Terry Kauffman ] said. ‘Will there be absolute unanimity? Probably not. But can we come to a consensus? I hope so. But at the end of the day, the system board will make the decision. There will be some happy people and some unhappy people.’”
The Lancaster Public Library (LPL) (Duke Street) used to perform many of these countywide services from their lower level at a low cost. Nevertheless, small rural libraries suspected that LNP was profiteering and not giving them a fair shake (both disproven) and so a central service organization was created – The System.
The bureaucracy has ‘grown like Topsy’, in part because the majority of the libraries serve small populations and they remain somewhat antagonistic towards LPL. They use their one vote per library power to skew state funding in their direction, receiving from two to four times the per capita state funding as LPL.
Recently, when first suggesting that the System independently raise money for its use and to pass through to its members (despite the system consuming most of the county and some of the state funding), Kaufman and cohorts had promised they would not compete for the same sources as the libraries.
So what is among the first thing they do? They solicit LPL’s chief benefactor!
Of course the small libraries have no objection. They like the idea of the System taking from LPL and giving the money to them.
Kaufman and others need to read the contract among the libraries that created the System. Any library can withdraw from the System with a few months’ notice. Why should LPL stay in the System if their funding life line is to be cut off?
NewsLanc’s has long derided the very notion, unique to Lancaster County, of both a County System and autonomous libraries. Lancaster has given birth to a two-headed horse, pulling in opposite directions, thus standing still while consuming energy and funds.
Other communities usually have a countywide library system with individual libraries represented only by advisory boards, or they have autonomous libraries with a small “S” system paid by the libraries, often on a fee for service basis. Lancaster doesn’t need both.
It is a time for the county commissioners to stop playing Hamlet and decide which direction they want Lancaster to go. Either way is far better than the both that we have now.
Full disclosure: Karen Haley Field is the wife of NewLanc’s publisher. His views are not necessarily hers- far from it.
It might be helpful for Newlanc and/or the library to publish how the individual municipalities fund their libraries. I attended a meeting two or three years ago when Lancaster City felt it had to end it’s cash funding (other service contributions were not ended). It was somewhat surprising to me that many towns contribute nothing to their libraries.
Good points made by all. I’m not sure if a per capita spending is the correct measurement. I see nothing wrong with an annual membership fee for members. I would toss out a $25.00 per family figure as a starting point.