Category Archives: Cilip AGM

Cilip AGM 2017

It’s been a busy week in the library world with the main event being Libraries Week, showcasing as it did the wonderful and diverse range of work that libraries and library staff do. As illustrated on the LW website libraries are still ridiculously well attended and not necessarily in terminal decline as some would have us believe.That said, libraries still face quite significant challenges.

Despite being the representative of a government that has overseen the closure of 340 libraries and the loss of 8000 library staff John Glenn wasted no time in exploiting the event for numerous photo opportunities. He appears quite happy to use libraries as a backdrop to deliver inane governmental platitudes but not actually do anything to protect them. As the old adage goes ‘actions speak louder than words’ and by taking none the new libraries minister is as much a paper tiger as previous incumbents of the post.

Ethics Workshop

This week also saw the Cilip AGM take place and it’s become a tradition on this blog to report back from it. Just before the AGM I took part in one of the ethic workshops that have been organised as part of the Big Conversation. While ethics might seem a long way from the practical, everyday situations librarians find themselves in the reverse is true and our values and behaviours should underpin everything we do. In my opinion we cannot claim to be a profession or act professionally if we don’t understand why we do what we do.

As Dawn Fince observes:

“It is worthwhile to reflect for a moment as to why ethics and professional values are so important. Our ethical principles do sit at the centre of our Professional Knowledge and Skills Base (PKSB), and should inform and inspire the way we use all the skills and knowledge set out in the PKSB, but they should be even more far reaching. At their best they should also protect the user, engender trust across all stakeholder groups and enable better judgement and decision making. To do that they need to be embedded in every aspect of our professional practice and promoted more widely within our user communities. This review is very much about the “public good” of our profession which, for CILIP, we express in terms of the following goal: “to put information and library skills and professional values at the heart of a democratic, equal and prosperous society”.

It was heartening therefore to discover that over 1500 responses had been received to the ethics survey. If you havene’t had the opportunity yet I would encourage members and non-members alike to visit the Ethics Review page and to read the recent blog what are the work-based ethical issues concerning you?

For a more in-depth look at the topic it’s worth reading the seminal Our Enduring Values by Michael Gorman and an excellent round-up of the various issues by David McMenemy: Sustaining Our Common Values (slide presentation).

Libraries Change Lives

The Highlight of any Cilip AGM is the Libraries Change Lives Award and this year was no exception. It’s worth viewing all four shortlisted projects, with introductory films, to see how much impact libraries can have on peoples lives. And while every year throws up wonderful and innovative work being done, this year’s winner was particularly inspirational and moving. So congratulations to the library at HMP Norwich that delivers weekly cognitive stimulation therapy to elderly prisoners serving life sentences, who are suffering from memory loss, dementia, and depression.

Congratulations also to the other shortlisted candidates:

  • Ipswich Library’s Chat and Chill:  for women from diverse and international backgrounds living in Suffolk
  • Kirklees Libraries’ Family Storywalks: bringing local families together outdoors to take part in learning and nature-based activities
  • Story Café at the Women’s Library in Glasgow: a women-only shared reading group which brings women from different backgrounds together to connect over literature

Honorary Fellowship:

There was also the awarding of five Honorary Fellowships

  • Joy Court – Carnegie Greenaway Award Chair, Children’s librarian and children’s literature expert
  • Martin Hayes – local studies librarian for West Sussex County
  • Stephan Roman – former Regional Director of South Asia for the British Council
  • Sheila Webber – Senior Lecturer at the University of Sheffield’s Information School

And last but by no means least:

  • Chris Riddell – triple Kate Greenaway Medal winning illustrator, political cartoonist and former Children’s Laureate

All thoroughly deserved and Chris Riddell kept the room entertained with an amusing story of why and how librarians had inspired him:  “This honorary fellowship has given me a chance to think of the important librarians in my life. She was called Helen…!”

Finally

It was an excellent day and a chance to catch-up with colleagues old and new and the opportunity to network. I would certainly encourage all members to attend an AGM if they get the opportunity.

Finally, Cilip members will have the opportunity to elect three new trustees to the Board over the coming weeks. Among the candidates is a certain Likable Loquacious Blogger..! Need I say more.

Cilip VP Election – Rita Marcella

This post is written by Rita Marcella, one of the two candidates for Cilip Vice-President. I asked each candidate the same five questions with the opportunity for an opening and closing statement. The questions reflect my own interests as a public librarian but are hopefully also relevant for the wider profession as well as campaigners. 

The successful candidate will be elected Vice-President and “…will become CILIP President in 2018. The Vice-President and President are honorary roles and their duties include being an ambassador and spokesperson for CILIP.” 

Many thanks to Rita for sharing her views.  

Details on how to vote can be found at: Elections for the CILIP Board and for Vice-President 

rita-marcellaAbout me

I have been a librarian since my early twenties when I first went to work in a university library after graduating with my Diploma in Information and Library Studies. After having my first child I became an academic teaching cataloguing and classification, user studies and bibliographic and reference work. My research and teaching interests have varied far and wide over the years and I honestly believe that there is not an aspect of library and information service that I have not reflected upon over that time.

However, despite varied interests and work with public library services, advisory services and special libraries in government and business, my chief personal research interest has always remained that of supporting the library and information user to access the information they need to help them in every aspect of their everyday lives. I like to look at the issue from both sides: from that of the information service provider and of the information service user, understanding the motivations, context and challenges of both.

Over the last 15 years as Dean of a business faculty my focus has been on interaction with industry and management of resources, both of which have given me keen insights into the challenges facing organisations in both the public and private sectors. I have also been involved in numerous charities and non-exec boards, in particular in work to enhance equity and diversity.

1. What is the core message of your manifesto?

I feel passionate about the value of library and information service and about our profession – I believe that the enabled access that we in the profession provide is critical to people’s lives in a huge number of ways and I would appreciate the opportunity in the role of Vice President to support the profession in maximising the impact of that message.

We need to provide more tangible evidence of the ways in which access to information and knowledge empowers individuals, organisations and societies. It is my view that there has been a steady erosion of the funding of, investment in and commitment to libraries and information service support in all kinds of spheres in the three decades of my career and that this erosion has been mirrored in academia, where our discipline has found itself swamped by an organisational incorporation into ‘bigger’ disciplines to the detriment of the subject. I’d like to bring the whole profession – practitioners, academics and those entering the profession together to assemble the evidence of the impact of libraries and information in an even stronger way. Through CILIP we have the base of professional partnership on which to make that work.

2. If elected what is the one area you would like to see CILIP tackle?

I should like CILIP to tackle the notion of empowerment through information both by celebrating the successes and illustrating the impact of information access but also by exploring further the ways in which people, organisations and societies can be disadvantaged through not having access to relevant, reliable and robust information. This is very much in line with my own chief focus in so much of my work but I believe that it is an agenda that it is at the heart of what CILIP is seeking to achieve.

3. What would you like to see the Taskforce’s Ambitions document contain?

I’d like a clear action plan on assembly of evidence and its powerful communication. I think that all of us who are involved in LIS understand and believe passionately in the vital role that libraries and information services play at every stage and in every context. What we have perhaps been less good at doing is having a targeted strategy for how to tackle the attitude that allow us to be packaged up as something that is ‘nice to have’ in good times but under threat at others. Strengthening and reinforcing powerful advocacy and building on work CILIP has already done is crucial.

My own particular contribution to the debate whether or not I am successful in this election will be to develop our understanding of how access to libraries and information more generally enables people and in particular disadvantaged groups to overcome barriers to success and exclusion from society.

4. In your opinion are public and school libraries facing a crisis or opportunity? 

As ever there are no threats without opportunities – that is an accepted truism in business practice. The threat is real and has resulted in the erosion I describe above – and not just in public and school libraries, but in every kind of library and information service imaginable. But the opportunities are there too: indeed arguably too many opportunities. For another truism in management is that if you have 83 priorities, you’ll fail: if you have one or two you have a far greater chance of success. And one of the ways in which the profession and academia needs to work together is on identifying and focusing on the most high value opportunities, the biggest wins – is that the extent to which libraries and information services support the health of our economy? That’s a big ticket item for sure.

5. What is your opinion of the My Library By Right Campaign & did you sign the petition?

I agree that all of society should have free and equal rights to information through libraries and other forms of provision and I support the My Library by Right, as I did the American Library Association’s Declaration for the Right to Libraries. I was very happy to sign the petition and wish the campaign every success. It is it seems to me a fact that LIS professional communities across the globe share the same set of common values about libraries and information and we need to work together through IFLA and other fora to drive forward such campaigns.

My final thoughts

Standing in the election for Vice President of CILIP has given me a very welcome opportunity to reflect back over a career spent working in Library and Information Science, a career of researching information use and need amongst citizens, business, decision makers in government and so on – but also a career of recruiting young people into the profession and preparing them for a career in library and information service. Those 35 years have seen many changes but ultimately at their core the library and information professional is dedicated to excellent service to people, to organisations and to society. We have a huge amount to celebrate in that but some messages to convey to policy makers about how and why that is important.

I want to conclude by saying that while I would be honoured if given the opportunity to take on the role of Vice President of CILIP, I will not be downcast if I am not successful for having read the post of my fellow candidate in the hustings, Ayub Khan, that I completely support everything that he says.

Cilip AGM 2016

The highlight of the Cilip AGM is the Libraries Change Lives Award, providing as they do an inspiration for the rest of the sector. This year was no exception.

Congratulations then to the winner, Norfolk Libraries for their  Healthy Libraries’ initiative; a countywide programme promoting healthy living and targeting the county’s most serious health priorities through the Norfolk library network.”

But equally well done to all those shortlisted for showing how vital and needed libraries and staff are for their communities.

Congratulations also to the winners of the UKeiG Information Manager of the Year and Mentor of the Year awards, and the Honorary Fellows.

Typically in the build up to AGM I would write several posts, usually critical and usually about the increase in subscription fees or lack of political campaigning and advocacy for libraries.

Two factors have conspired to keep me quiet this year. Firstly, work events and demands have meant that my attention has, by necessity, been focused elsewhere. Secondly for the first time I broadly agreed with all the items on the agenda including the proposals regarding membership fees. The AGM agreed to:

  • Freeze to subscription rates for the majority of members in 2017
  • End the trial of providing free student membership and returning students to a heavily discounted rate
  • Include a minimum annual subscription of £40 for newly qualified members and the removal of access to a 50% discount for newly qualified members if earning over £42,001
  • Modest fee increases for Professional Registration enrolment and portfolio submission

This now paves “…the way for CILIP’s proposed new approach to membership from January 2018. The proposed structure is designed to be more affordable, better value for money, more open to everyone in the sector and provide clearer benefits.” To which I add is more equitable and fairer to members.  

Added to this is my growing satisfaction with the direction of travel that Cilip is taking and that within a relatively short space of time a convergence of views has evolved.

From being  perceived as soft on library closures we have seen quite increasingly strong statements from Cilip, Nick Poole as CEO, and the current President Dawn Finch, against closures, hollowing out, and the loss of paid staff.

Nick has engaged in a round of media coverage to promote the value of libraries, and even written to councils where cuts have appeared rather draconian. Equally, Dawn is an outspoken defender of library services and fierce critic of closures and cutbacks.

Last year the Cilip Board fully endorsed the resolution to oppose the ‘amateurisation’ of public libraries services and we have seen the launch of the My Library By Right campaign, challenging both local and central government to fulfil their legal responsibilities and provide a quality library service.

Cilip is also ensuring that librarians and staff have a strong voice on the Libraries Taskforce.

And while this is still not enough for some I see it as evidence of an increasingly confident and vocal professional body, willing to champion the value of libraries and librarians.

So this year the other winner is Cilip itself in achieving what some people would have considered impossible; giving me nothing to be grumpy about.

The problem is, I do like being ever so grumpy…thanks a lot Cilip!

 

 

 

 

 

That Was Then…

untitledI published my first post in October 2013 outlining the Cilip AGM of that year. The context to my beginning this blog was almost utter disillusionment with Cilip: it’s lack of campaigning for public libraries, the continuous increase in subscriptions, and the constant navel gazing culminating in the ill-advised proposal to change the body’s name (‘ILPUKe’ or ‘I’ll Puke’ anyone!). It was hemorrhaging members by the hundreds and seemed lacking any relevance to the battles being fought daily by campaigners and library staff on the ground.

Thankfully, the name change was defeated and the one positive outcome of the AGM was a vote of no confidence in Ed Vaizey. I think if the name change had gone through and the vote of no confidence failed I and many other members would have voted with our feet. More battles followed and I make no apologies for being a staunch critic of Cilip in several areas, particularly membership fees.

In 2015 I gave a cautious welcome to the appointment of Nick Poole as the new CEO but within a few short months I could detect a sea-change in the organisation; a willingness to listen and engage, advocate for the membership, and address the difficult issues and decisions facing the profession. Quickly Nick began to raise the body’s profile during a round of radio and TV interviews talking about library closures and advocating for the profession.

The fact that Cilip seemed to be turning a corner was illustrated in an interview with Kathy Settle, discussing the November spending review, in which Nick stated:

“My biggest concern is that we allow services to be hollowed-out in the name of keeping up appearances, keeping the doors open while reducing the range and quality of services offered by skilled and qualified staff.

We can’t afford to focus on the short-term situation while allowing library services to be systematically under-funded. We need to fight the battles ahead while remaining focused on the real aim – which is to deliver the modern and comprehensive library network that the public need and have a right to expect.”

The AGM in September 2015 brought another surprise when the Cilip Board fully supported the motion opposing the amateurisation of public libraries. Not everything was rosy however and I continued to oppose increasing membership fees. That said, the campaigning and advocacy aspects were improving dramatically.

It appeared that at long last Cilip was evolving into the professional body its members needed it to be. This has included a growing list of positive initiatives:

Not bad for a CEO who has only been in post for 12 months. Credit should also go to the dedication of the Cilip Board Members and staff. As President Dawn Finch is a straight talking proponent for libraries, the Board appears to address the more contentious issues head on, and this is underpinned by hard working staff that make proposals and policies a reality. Long may it continue.

As part of the Fit for the Future proposals there is a short survey for both members and non-members to express an opinion. I encourage everyone to do so. The idea of a leaders network is also intriquing so I look forward to more details being made available about the scheme.

It is also gratifying to see the proposed reduction in subscriptions fees and free student membership abolished. I voted against free membership in 2013 on the basis that what students really needed was for a professional body to be relevant rather than free.

Now I understand and sympathise that for some campaigners Cilip is not as radical or political as they would like it to be. But I would argue that it is still early days and more has been done to change and improve Cilip in the past 12 months than in many years previously. Cilip is also a broad church so has to strike a balance between the different aspects and sectors it represents.

That said, Cilip still has work to do, particularly in it’s relationship with the Libraries Taskforce. Many disagreements still exist between government policy and aspirations that Cilip and individual members have expressed for public libraries. Whether or not these differences will be ironed out and a consensus reached through the Taskforce’s Ambitions document remains to be seen.

I also remain critical of the small cadre of Taskforce members making decisions on behalf of public libraries around commercial sponsorship without wider discussions in the sector. In a recent Twitter exchange I, Nick Poole and other campaigners discussed the development of an ethical policy to help inform such partnerships, which is something I hope the Taskforce will take on board.

So, from my first post to this one I see the beginnings of real change in Cilip and as an individual member feel more positive about my professional body than I have done for a long time.

Cilip AGM 2015

Cilipres4I was unable to attend the AGM this year but thanks to the wonder of technology and the excellent work of Cilip staff I was able to follow the proceedings via a live video link.

As usual the Libraries Change Lives Award was inspirational and full of ideas for other services to emulate. Well done to all the shortlisted candidates and particularly well done to the winner, North Ayrshire Libraries, with their ‘Appiness’ digital programme for pre-schoolers and parents.

There were six worthy recipients of the Honorary Fellowship award this year including Ian Anstice of Public Library News fame. Never has an award been so richly deserved and Twitter was alight with people (including myself) offering congratulations. There are not enough superlatives for Ian’s excellent work so I will stick with saying incredibly well done, without his hard work and dedication the library world would be a poorer and less informed place.

Unfortunately, the subscriptions were raised once again on a vote of 105 for, 33 Against & 5 Abstentions. My opposition to the rise is well known and at the meeting there was a lot of criticism of the £17-£42k band. Mike Hoskings, Cilip Treasurer has indicated  that this will be looked at, and despite promises to the same for the past five years, perhaps this will be the year something actually changes. I remain ever hopeful.

Nick Poole highlighted the increased advocacy by Cilip this past year and announced the launch of the Strategic Plan 2016-2020, called Shape the Future:

‘Shape the Future is an open, collaborative project to develop CILIP’s Strategic Plan 2016-2020. We want to ensure that as many people as possible have a chance to contribute to this plan including members and non-members, external parties, staff and partners in all 4 nations of the UK and internationally.’

One of the most urgent areas to be addressed will be the continuing decline in membership. Apparently, there are now only 3000 members from public libraries left in Cilip. It’s difficult to decide if there is one over-riding factor for the decline but I would hazard a guess that weak advocacy from Cilip over the past 5 years has played a major part. Equally, the loss of 37% professionally qualified staff in public libraries since 2009/10 won’t have helped either.

That said, I do see some change in Cilip’s approach and certainly since becoming CEO Nick Poole has been more overt in advocating for the profession as evidenced by the string of TV and radio interviews recently. Equally, the Board backed resolution 4 last night opposing the amateurisation of public libraries. Again, well done to Andy Richardson & Anna Brynolf for submitting the motion and presenting it so eloquently.

Most people were in favour of the motion. Some minor amendments were made with the replacement of the word ‘manned’ by ‘staffed’, and the resolution was easily passed.

Sue Williamson, Head of Library Services at St Helens, felt is was unfair to apportion blame to senior library managers as they often had little choice in making such changes. No one, certainly not Heads of Service want the amateurisation of the profession. I quite agree with Sue’s comments and have often written how difficult it is for managers to resist such changes since decisions are made by councillors.

This is where the Society of Chief Librarians have a vital role to play. While individual HoS, as paid council officers, have no choice but to implement changes – and many do argue quite strongly behind the scenes – SCL, as the body representing senior library managers, could make an unequivocal statement opposing volunteer run libraries and the loss of paid staff.

However, this might not be realistic given that only a year ago the President of SCL as part of her inaugural speech stated that a priority was to “…explore how we might develop resources and a framework to support community-led libraries.” It might be that Cilip and SCL’s positions on this issue are starting to diverge significantly.

Another interesting factor will be reconciling the principle of the resolution with the fact that Jan Parry, President of Cilip, has been appointed to lead a task-force charged with working out how Liverpool’s libraries will be funded from 2017 onwards. On the face of it the resolution would appear to preclude Jan recommending that Liverpool hand over further libraries to community groups or volunteers. We shall just have to wait and see what models are eventually suggested.

So, another AGM over with lots of changes afoot. I’m certainly looking forward to the Shape the Future consultation, greater advocacy and opposition to volunteer run libraries, but most of all, to finally sorting out the subscription bands.

 

 

Show me the money…again & again & again

The Cilip AGM is upon us shortly and members are being asked to dig deeply into financially shallow pockets yet again. In a post last year I argued against raising the subscription rate but was in a minority and the increase was passed. Unfortunately, it seems Cilip is determined to treat members as milch cows despite the job losses and limit on public sector pay.

I think the debate over fees was lost amongst the changes to the governance model last year and unfortunately might well be again this year as the focus will be on the proposal to oppose the amateurisation of the public library services.

But the ever increasing subscription rates is an important issue that should be given greater prominence.

The current fee for those earning more than £17,501 is £204 with a proposed increase to £208 from 2016. Since 2010 subscription fees will have increased from £184 to £208 (if agreed) representing an increase of 13% and the fourth time they will have been raised in a relatively short time.

Now set this against a background of pay freezes and pay caps for public sector workers, including library staff, over the past 5 years. Many librarians have felt the full impact of the austerity measures not only in terms of job losses but also in rising living costs. The government has announced that public sector pay will be capped once again at 1% until 2018. But the 1% is not guaranteed. Greg Hands, chief secretary to the Treasury has stated that the rise should be paid in a ‘targeted manner’ with some workers getting more and others getting less than the 1%.

The change to subscriptions not only affects professionally qualified librarians but also many experienced staff who apply for ACLIP status as they have to pay the same rates. These staff are likely to be on the lower end of the subscription band and tend to be part-time workers. In fact throughout public libraries underemployment is a real issue limiting the amount of disposable income.

For library staff who have suffered derisory pay rises during the past few years the cost of membership is a major investment. With this in mind Cilip should be looking at ways of freezing or reducing fees rather than putting an additional burden on members.

One of the inequities is that the subscription band for most members ranges from £17,501 – £42,00. This is far too broad and members have repeatedly requested that different bands be created with a more equitable sliding scale. This has not happened and I suspect there will be many who will ask if the investment in membership, particularly in public libraries, justifies the cost and decide to vote with their feet. For an organisation that struggles to retain members this continuing increase in fees is not a sustainable policy.

Needless to say I will not be supporting the subscription increase and hope that others also question the need to do so during difficult financial times for members.

Addendum

As part of the justification for the increase the subscription proposal argues that:

“Wage inflation is varied with general wage inflation reportedly being 3.5%, however at the same time I am well aware that some members in the public sector will have had no inflation increase.”

However, as a recent story in the Financial Times recognised this rise is driven by private sector pay and bonuses. Thus, the above claim is misleading and a far cry from what public sector workers, who face a pay cap of 1% until 2018, can expect.

 

The ‘Amateurisation’ of Public Libraries

The 2015 CILIP AGM takes place on Thursday 24 September at CILIP Headquarters and unlike previous years is a fairly low key affair estimated to take just over two hours. As usual I would urge all those members who cannot attend to at least use their proxy votes.

The two areas that have grabbed my attention are the proposal by Andy Richardson and Anna Brynolf (below) and the, as usual, ever increasing subscription rates. The unnecessary increase in subs is something I argued against last year but it seems that Cilip is determined to treat members as milch cows despite the job losses and limit on public sector pay. This is a matter I will return to in a future post.

Well done to Andy and Anna for submitting the following proposal and saying what many within the profession think. The phrase ‘amateurisation of the Public Library services’ sums up the current situation succinctly and encapsulates in a single word the reductions, hollowing out, deprofessionalisation, and handing over to volunteers. Amateurisation indeed!

The wording of the proposal is:

“That CILIP actively oppose those public authorities and senior library staff over the “amateurisation” of the Public Library service by offering library buildings and contents to be run by the local community with little or no funding for professional or paid library staff. This is resulting in public libraries being run by volunteer staff and taking away work currently done by paid professional and library assistant staff. All current public library service points manned by paid local authority library staff should be the current base-line – and where such actions are suggested by the local authority and senior library staff, CILIP should support the opposition to such proposals and say so publicly.”

 

Vol stats

The loss of staff and increase in volunteers is starkly illustrated in this graph from the Guardian.

Recently Cilip has raised its profile around advocating for libraries and Nick Poole has done a round of radio and TV interviews talking about library closures. However, I still think Cilip’s approach is too softly-softly so will be supporting the proposal and urging Cilip to be more adversarial in its opposition to the removal of paid staff.

This proposal transitions interestingly into the announcement that Jan Parry, President of Cilip, has been appointed to lead a task-force charged with working out how Liverpool’s libraries will be funded from 2017 onwards. From one perspective this is a positive move to involve those who actually know about libraries, from another it could be seen as glossing over the relinquishing of 5 libraries to volunteers and the loss of paid staff.

So this is a precarious position for Cilip. Any move to find a solution which involves volunteer libraries will be met with outrage from members and campaigners alike and will run contrary to the above proposal if passed.

Cilip has released a statement in support of the work Jan has been asked to do. Unfortunately, it is couched in terms that immediately gives rise for concern and suspicion in that it is similar to the vague terminology and management-speak that seeks to disguise reductions to service and removal of staff.

Cilip needs to clarify in plain English whether or not this will mean supporting, even indirectly, volunteer run libraries. It would be reassuring if Cilip were to offer a base-line affirmation, along the lines of the SLIC recommendation, that volunteer run libraries without paid professional staff are not the preferred option.

There is a basic financial imperative for Cilip in all of this. It is paid staff, not volunteers, that pay subscriptions and without employment they are unable to do so. So less employment for members means less members for Cilip. Simple really!

Addendum

Interesting comment from librariesmatter:

Just a thought …..if CILIP had wider membership then perhaps it wouldn’t need to raise subscription rates and it wouldn’t be seen so much as a narrow professional body merely protecting its members interests.

For example the American Library Association provides personal membership to Library Friends, Trustees and Associates. CILIP for some reason doesn’t embrace such people.

 

 

 

What about social justice?

The following is by John Vincent who is a tireless campaigner for promoting social justice through public libraries. In 1997 he was invited to become part of the team that produced the UK’s first review of public libraries and social exclusion from which The Network originated.

John now runs courses and lectures, writes, produces regular newsletters and ebulletins, and lobbies for greater awareness of the role that libraries, archives and museums play in contributing to social justice, and is also the author of LGBT People and the UK Cultural Sector and along with John Pateman, Public Libraries and Social Justice. John was deservedly awarded a Honorary Fellowship for his work by Cilip this year.

What about social justice?

John Vincent

Leon and I bumped into each other at the CILIP “Big Day”, where we were celebrating the achievements of the three finalists for the CILIP Libraries Change Lives Award, and he invited me to write a piece about social justice and community libraries.

This seems an entirely appropriate moment to consider this issue, as, at the “Big Day”, we were urged by William Sieghart to go out and copy the work of the three outstanding finalists (the winners, Northamptonshire Library and Information Service and the Northamptonshire Enterprise Partnership Enterprise Hubs; and the finalists Hertfordshire Library Service and KidsHub library sessions, and Leeds Library Service Studio 12 – Writing Leeds) – William also declared that:

“We need to do something urgently. We’re at a Beeching moment – the review that led to the closure of railway branch lines – which many regret, and that’s why this is urgent.”

However, the one issue which William Sieghart’s talk seemed to gloss over was the role of libraries in working towards social justice!

An aside before we begin: some public libraries are working to tackle social exclusion, and have been doing so (albeit under different names) long before the introduction of the formal policy in 1997 – think, for example, of the community librarianship and outreach heydays of the 1970s and 1980s. However, it is also worth reminding ourselves that the research which led to Open to all? [1], published by the then Resource in 2000, demonstrated that:

“… there are wide differentials between UK public library authorities [PLAs] in terms of activity relevant to social inclusion:

  • The survey estimates that only one-sixth of PLAs approximate to a comprehensive model of good practice for social inclusion. Most PLAs (60%), although having developed some initiatives, have no comprehensive strategy and uneven and intermittent activity. A final group of one-quarter of PLAs are those with little apparent strategy and service development
  • Targeting of disadvantaged neighbourhoods and social groups is used comprehensively by only approximately one-third of PLAs. Recent service developments in libraries, such as the development of ICT networks and literacy initiatives, tend to be targeted at socially excluded people in only a small minority of cases
  • Most PLAs report fairly high levels of community involvement by their staff but this tends to be at a general level, rather than focussed on disadvantage or exclusion
  • Most PLAs have no consistent resource focus on exclusion, and this is sometimes very marginal indeed. A minority of PLAs are very active in developing partnership projects but this is not a dominant factor in most PLA social exclusion strategies
  • Many of the UK’s most marginal and excluded people are not considered to be a priority in PLA strategy, service delivery and staffing. This applies especially to a number of social groups who commonly face stigma and discrimination: e.g. Refugees; Homeless People; Travellers.” [p ix]

There was a concerted effort by some public library services after 2000 to put inclusion at their core. However, I think that social justice involves taking this a stage further still, for example by recognising the current harsh and discriminatory treatment of all kinds of groups in society (claimants, single parents, migrants, disabled people) and finding ways in which the library can provide information and other support (eg meeting spaces) to assist communities to fight for their rights, and also to help people think through where “the truth” may lie. In its policy guidelines, What makes a good library service?, CILIP says that:

“A good library service will deliver against key policy objectives and provide:
• … Equality, community cohesion and social justice …” [p2]

So, how are we doing?

As the CILIP Libraries Change Lives Award finalists (and, indeed, the other applicants for the Award) have demonstrated, despite the gloomy economic and political climate for public libraries, there is brilliant work going on in some libraries – work which not only supports communities that may otherwise be marginalised (unemployed people; children with special needs and their families; and young people from BME communities, many were excluded from school, experienced poor formal education and many have been long-term unemployed – to take the three finalists), but also shows how vital a public library can be.

However, is this pattern universal across the UK? To take two examples, if, ten years ago, you looked for examples of public library websites that strongly promoted their LGBT provision, there would have been many good examples. Today, there are hardly any.

When the Welcome To Your Library project finished in 2007, there was growing interest in developing provision for ‘new arrivals’ (refugees, asylum-seekers, migrant workers, etc), not only from the six WTYL partner areas, but across the UK – now, provision is minimal, with only a very few libraries targeting and providing services.

We know some of the reasons why this is happening: lack of library staff, time and resources; communities overwhelmed by other demands on their time; possibly political views about ‘new arrivals’.

But is there more to it? Could it be that, surreptitiously, we’ve become worn down by the calls to return to building-based services, to concentrate on existing users and their demands, to abandon ‘risky’ types of service, or services that do not show ‘high returns’ such as increased issue figures and visitor numbers? We do know that the sort of work that is required to make public libraries really relevant is time-intensive, and often involves relatively small numbers of users.

In addition, how many public library services have actually taken this sort of work into their core? Is social justice (or tackling social exclusion) embedded in everything they do, for example in making funding priority decisions? Or is it an add-on? Is it seen as a core activity, or a ‘project’? (And, by ‘project’, I mean something that is time-limited and short-term funded.) One of the dangers is that, when funding diminishes and when external funding sources dry up, so ‘social justice work’ also stops, instead of its being seen as a core activity.

And this then brings us to community libraries. I am arguing here that, currently, social justice is already on the ‘back-burner’ for some libraries, and, with politicians’ apparent urgent desire to decimate local services (at a time when, ludicrously, Britain is starting to commit vast sums of money to a highly risky and unproven war strategy in the Near East and North Africa; and the anomaly of savage cuts to local services whilst giving huge grants to businesses is only just being explored by the media), libraries – along with other vital provision – continue to be at risk.

The pros and cons of community libraries are neatly summed up in the new report from OPM and Locality, Rural library services in England: exploring recent changes and possible futures:

“Where communities have become more directly involved in supporting or managing their rural libraries, they can evolve into more effective, positive and well-used venues than their predecessors. This can involve the nurturing of a
library’s role in supporting social interaction, strengthening community ties, hosting events and activities to appeal to a wider range of people and creating space for clubs and societies to flourish.

In other cases, however, library friends groups might save a branch but bring with them very limited perceptions about what that facility will offer. As such, library service managers are sometimes concerned about the inability of some of their community libraries to live up to what should be expected of a local library from the point of view of standards / consistency of service and inclusivity.” [pp5-6, emphasis theirs]

It is this approach that has led to library provision becoming something of a postcode lottery, particularly where libraries have been ‘cast adrift’ by their local authority, losing the steer that they had previously.

Libraries must be properly funded and properly staffed if they are to take their rightful place in the struggle for social justice – and working towards social justice has to be their core aim. Without that, what is their purpose?

_____________________________________________

[1] Dave Muddiman, Shiraz Durrani, Martin Dutch, Rebecca Linley, John Pateman and John Vincent. Open to All? The public library and social exclusion: volume one: overview and conclusions. Resource (Library and Information Commission Research Report 84), 2000.

Cilip AGM 2014

Today is something of an anniversary for me. It was the debate over the renaming proposal last year that reignited my interest in Cilip and attendance at the general meeting, which led directly to me starting this blog, with the first post being a report back on the AGM 2013.

Since then I have widened the posts to include issues around library closures, service reductions, campaigns, and advocacy, as it is libraries in the political arena that mainly interests me. Most of all I have tried to bring a librarian’s view to the debate as I firmly believe that professionally qualified librarians are fundamental to the very nature of a library service and integral to the best possible service delivery. Quite simply, a library without a librarian is not actually a library.

Now obviously there are practical caveats is to this statement such as smaller libraries would be overseen and have consistent access to a community librarian (or similar) rather than one being based in each library but overall the general principle stands.

Sieghart: Anyway, back to the Cilip Big Day and AGM. The keynote speaker was William Sieghart who was obviously very supportive and sympathetic to public libraries. The main thrust of his speech was that libraries need a change of narrative to highlight how valuable they are. As well as updating the infrastructure and governance models, with Suffolk libraries being held up as what could be achieved when libraries are released from the bureaucratic constraints of local authority control. Overall, the talk was high on aspiration but low on substance. Anyone attending expecting a detailed analysis will have been disappointed so will have to wait for publication of the report for the specifics.

Governance: Although less controversial than the name change last year there had still been quite a furore caused over the proposed changes to the governance model, which on the day needed a two thirds majority to pass. Given the barbed comments at times on emails lists and social media the debate on the day was good natured, with the result being the adoption of the new model of governance but keeping a fully elected Board.

Credit to Cilip for allowing the proposals to be voted on separately as most members agreed that a new model was needed but many were not convinced about the proposed changes to Council.

Fees: I was in a minority regarding the subscription fees and the increase was passed. I think a debate over fees was lost amongst the changes to the governance model but I am hoping this will be the last rise for a while otherwise I see another argument brewing for the future.

Engagement: What continues to perplex me is the continuing low turn-out and voting on issues by the membership. I’ve said before that £200 is a lot of money to pay to then more or less ignore the workings of the professional body. Even where members are unable to attend AGM’s the proxy voting system is quite straight forward (although I look forward to the day when as an information profession we manage to do this online) so I find such indifference puzzling.

Fellowship: Another highlight was the awarding of the Honorary Fellowships of which there were six worthy recipients including John Vincent for his work around social justice and equality, and Janene Cox for championing the development of the Universal Offers.

However, this is not a blow by blow account of what happened on the day – full details can be found here – but rather my impressions. A highlight for me was Philip Wark’s comments during the Library Change Lives awards defending the professional integrity of library services over them being handed to volunteers. Philip is head of the award winning Midlothian library service and a honorary fellowship recipient.

On a personal note it was good to catch-up with colleagues from other services or that I had worked with in the past. Equally, it was good to talk to Council members such as John Dolan and Martyn Wade. It’s easy to forget in the cut and thrust of disagreement that Council is made up of genuinely decent individuals, giving their own time and doing what they think is best for Cilip. It’s OK to disagree but let’s remember do it professionally.

So one year on and while many things have changed the battle for public libraries continue. With the Sieghart review due for publication and a general election on the horizon we are certainly living in interesting times professionally, and I wonder what my reflections will be in a year’s time?