Dodgy Dudley?

As a library campaigner and commentator I am particularly interested when libraries spin out of local authority control. It’s an issue I have written about many times and therefore tend to keep an eye on those proposing such a route.

Dudley is one such service. In October 2015 Public Library News highlighted the aim of Dudley Council to create an employee-led mutual with a planned launch date of April 2016. Given that such decisions require planning well in advance (or at least should do) I have no doubt that library staff, corporate officers, and councillors had been in discussions for a long time.

In the news story a spokesperson for the council made clear that the mutual would be “where council employees set up a new organisation separate to the local authority to continue to deliver public services.” A three-month public consultation was planned and for talks with staff, unions and other stakeholders.

Rachel Harris, the cabinet member responsible for libraries said:

“As a community council we are committed to delivering high quality services to our existing customers and at the same time providing opportunities to widen access to community services. An employee-led mutual creates opportunities to deliver professionally led services supported by the community in a way that local people can be proud of.”

In April 2016 it was announced that the library service would be run as a ‘not-for-profit mutual’. Councillor Harris is quoted as saying that this was a new era for the borough and described it as a ‘absolutely historic occasion for this council’.

It was reported that the new organisation would be run by staff but have community, employee and council involvement at board level.

So far, so good. Despite the cutbacks and financial challenges Dudley Council had made the decision to place the future of the library service firmly in the hands of the people who knew it best, the library staff themselves. This was certainly the position the council promoted to the public during the consultation exercise.

It was also the preferred option of the Council as the Cabinet Report made abundantly clear:

  • “Consultation with user groups about the Mutual model has been done by local staff in each setting.” (point4)
  • “There has been a specific comment about the mutual model from one of the Friends of Libraries groups who wanted to know more about the business case and how the Friends would work with the library if it was run from within a staff led mutual.” (point 5)
  • “There have been helpful and encouraging comments from one partner organisation where the library is co-located in their building about the Mutual model and how this could improve further joint working.” (point 6)
  • “Frequently Asked Questions continue to be compiled and a regular staff mutual newsletter began in January.  Staff are taking part in workstreams, including a workshop on branding for the Mutual.” (point 8)
  • ” A Mutual is an umbrella term for an organisation run for the benefit of its members, who have active and direct involvement whether as employees, suppliers or the community.  Meta-Value recommends an Employee-led Mutual with charitable status as the model for LAAL, which would enable greater income growth.  Membership would be open to employees and members of the community with a Board which includes a nominated Council representative.  York Explore has spun-out using this model.” (point 14)
  • “On 28th October 2015, Cabinet approved the following:  in principle, the setting up an employee-led Mutual for   LAAL, with a 5 year Business Plan, subject to consultation with staff and the public and the decision of full Council in February” (point 15)

In fact the whole report is in favour of the proposal to set-up a ‘staff led mutual’, so you would be forgiven for thinking that’s exactly what would happen. Certainly both the public and staff were led to believe this. So positive was the proposal to establish a staff led mutual that Dudley Council even prepared a candidate’s pack for a Treasurer of the newly created model.

Dudley was also awarded £42,000 as part of the Mutuals Support Programme for support around ‘legal governance, business planning and financial modelling, stakeholder engagement support and transition.’

Therefore, it came as a great shock when it was announced that GLL was instead to step in and take on the running of Dudley’s Libraries.

Now there several puzzling areas here:

  • How can GLL take on the running of Dudley libraries, including TUPEing staff over, and yet the Council still claim that a staff-led working arrangement has been created? A ‘staff-led’ mutual is precisely that: a service owned and run by the staff, for the benefit of the community in which each member of staff has a vote to elect trustees and local residents are able to become members. This is a long way from how GLL operates.
  • Where, when, how and whom made the decision to appoint GLL? Like many Councils decision-making takes place in a labyrinth of different committees. However, such decisions should be clear via Cabinet or Scrutiny minutes etc. I’ve made a request to DMBC for details but have not yet received an answer.
  • Did the funding given to Dudley via the Mutuals Support Programme allow for the awarding of the contract to a different provider?

I am actively following through on these questions and will publish a further post when (if!) I get answers.

One thing that is clear though is that both staff and the public have been misled and misinformed over the proposals. Neither group have been consulted or engaged with over the process and the decision to award the contract appears shrouded in council bureaucratic fog.

I hope that residents and campaigners challenge this bit of rather dodgy decision making. That Dudley Council quickly comes to its sense and reverses the agreement with GLL and awards it to where it properly belongs; to the staff and residents of Dudley.

 

 

Parish Councils, Localism & Libraries

I’ve previously written about the trend of moving services over to Parish and Town Councils, which at the time appeared not to have gained much notice in library campaigning circles.

This development has gained traction with more and more authorities looking to second tier councils to take responsibility for services, including libraries (single tier Unitary or Metropolitan Authorities operate slightly differently).

The rationale being that first tier authorities e.g. County, District or Borough Councils are capped by central government in terms of raising council tax but parish councils are not. Previously this stood at 2% but the 2016-17 financial year saw the Government propose a threshold of 4% for local authorities with social care responsibilities and 2% for district councils.

Any proposed rise above this limit would require a local referendum, which few councils have the appetite for. Currently, parish and town councils are not subject to such limitations and can raise precepts above the 2% threshold. Thus, cash-strapped local authorities have sought to exploit this loop-hole to pass services downwards.

The transfer of responsibility has been window-dressed in the terminology of Localism: the desire to  encourage decision making at the lowest practical level of local government in order to decide what level of services should continue e.g. street cleaning and grounds maintenance.

However, regardless of the jargon used it is not the desire to empower communities that is the driving force but the harsh financial settlement imposed by central government year on year on councils. Unfortunately, with no lessening of the overall council tax, plus a rise in the local precept, many people regard this as paying twice for the same service.

It also puts greater pressure on parish councils not only to provide additional services but to raise income and resources within a small locality. This is coupled with a fear that continuing excessive rises in the precept will lead to the introduction of a cap similar to the limit on first tier authorities. There are also technical issues around ‘General Powers of Competence’ and the need to employ a qualified Clerk in order to deliver such services.

The counter-argument runs that if local people do not see the value in a particular service then it will discontinue, with the principle that communities will only get those amenities they are willing to pay for.

In practice this leads to another two-tier model of winners and losers. The winners are those lucky enough to live in an affluent parish, with an articulate community willing to save their local library. The losers are those communities without the social structure to mount a robust defence, which will see library provision disappear.

This is the downside of localism. Relocating services not to empower communities but to divest financial responsibility and place libraries in a more precarious position so that if they fail the blame lies with the local community and not the local authority.

Pragmatic, a cynical ploy, or just a matter of financial survival for the local authority? Sadly, in the current political and financial climate, it’s likely to be all three.

 

What I Didn’t Know Then!

I wrote a post recently about the SCL not supporting the My Library By Right Campaign. I think it’s fair to say that my irritation and pique came through more strongly than perhaps intended. It appeared at the time to be a failure by the SCL to show what I considered to be fairly simple support for the profession, Cilip, and the incredibly important aim to encourage the DCMS to provide statutory guidance regarding the 1964 Libraries and Museums Act.

However, I am always ready to admit when either I have made a wrong assumption. So here’s some things I didn’t know then about the SCL that I do know now – and many thanks to the SCL members who have spoken to me about the matter:

  1. The SCL has no constitution: this was technically correct but only in so far that the SCL is incorporated as a company limited by guarantee and governed by Articles of Association.
  2. No individual membership fees: this was correct. Individual members are not required to pay membership fees but the local authority pays fees on the Head of Service (HoS) behalf.
  3. Consultation mechanisms: Members are able to effect policy through the regional groups, which are then taken to SCL Executive by regional representatives. The Executive has quite a lot of authority under the articles and are able to make decisions on behalf of the membership. Thus, it was the Executive that felt unable to support My Library By Right (January 2016 minutes refer – under AOB). The annual conference is also another opportunity to discuss and influence SCL decisions and direction of travel.
  4. Equally, members, like many membership organisations such as Cilip and ASCEL,  give freely of their time to ensure the running of the organisation.

That said, it’s a great pity that such information had to be conveyed verbally or the relevant documents sent. As a body made up of information professionals such information should be readily and publically available. SCL has to bear some responsibility for failing to do so.

I also refer back to another post in which the SCL indicated that they did not consider themselves a campaigning body, or as HoS, many of which are in politically restricted posts, able to overtly criticise central or local government policy. The consensus appears to be that they consider themselves more of a ‘development agency’ for libraries and as such can accomplish more for the profession as part of the Libraries Taskforce.

In the post I also recognised that the SCL has over the years promoted good practice, encouraged senior librarians to support each other and work together on a regional and national basis, and has been responsible for the Universal Offers. The Universal Offers are in my opinion one of the best schemes that libraries have undertaken. And for this the SCL should be given full credit.

Speaking to SCL members there also seems to be an acknowledgement that communication via the website could be improved and governance made more transparent. I welcome this move and hope it can be accomplished sooner rather than later. Perhaps a quick win would be publishing details of the upcoming conference.

Now all of this does not necessarily mean I agree with the SCL over its stance. To my untrained legal eye there is nothing in the Articles that would prevent them showing support – which is not the same as campaigning – for issues that affect their members as well as the wider profession. This includes support for statutory guidance around the 1964 Act, establishing a national strategy for England, and adopting a range of national standards. After all, in this, England is out of step with the rest of the UK so precedents have already been set.

However, while it is perfectly acceptable to disagree I broke my own rule about keeping such discourse courteous and professional.

That said, the SCL only represents the interest and opinions of 151 members so I maintain that it lacks the legitimacy to speak on behalf of the wider profession and that having fees paid for by the local authority compromises the independence of the SCL.

 

Shape of things to come

I’ve been rather preoccupied recently with proposed changes in my own local authority, about which, obviously, I cannot comment. But needless to say has kept me busy, with little time or energy to write a new post.

I did have every intention of following the last post with a rather downbeat synopsis of what public libraries can expect to face over the next four years in relation to government policy and funding, or lack thereof. Much of which might  still happen. However, the one glimmer of hope recently is that Cilip, at long last, has decided to take the government to task and insist they fulfil their legal duties under the 1964 Public Libraries and Museums Act, as well as provide statutory guidance for local authorities.

The My Library By Right campaign has been launched on legal advice received by Cilip that the Secretary of State, John Whittingdale, is failing in his legal duty  to provide clear statutory guidance on the definition of a ‘comprehensive and efficient’ service.

For many campaigners this more muscular opposition is entirely welcome. For others it smacks of ‘too little, too late.’ Personally, I think it’s a campaign that has the potential to unite together campaigners, library staff, Cilip and others concerned about the parlous state of library provision. It provides a very clear campaign focus and is a marked change in direction from the last Cilip administration. For this Nick Poole, Cilip Board and Cilip staff should be congratulated.

The campaign would also benefit from a statement of support from the SCL, who as individual Heads of Service, suffer under the same cuts as all library staff do. However, given SCL’s rather conservative stance over such matters, this might not be forthcoming. Perhaps SCL needs to consider that what the LGA wants is not actually in the best interest of the sector or their members.

One positive step that all library staff can take is to sign the online petition and encourage family and friends to do the same. I cannot urge colleagues enough to do this one little thing in defence of a profession we all care so much about.

However, before I get too congratulatory, it’s still early days and realistically it is likely to be a long, hard battle as the campaign proposes an approach that is directly at odds with the government’s vision for libraries, and runs counter to localism and devolution agendas.

In tandem with this news Ian Anstice has highlighted a number of trends influencing public library provision. Out of the 10 trends (and an eleventh in a subsequent post), the two that I think will have the most impact are the reduction in funding to local authorities and conversely the additional funding for the continuation of the Libraries Taskforce over the next four years.

The Government aims to totally remove the central grant, which has always been the mainstay of local government funding, by 2020. Instead the shortfall will have to be made up by new funding streams such as business rates. Unfortunately, this will not plug the very real financial gap. Many councils will still face significant shortages and struggle to deliver anything other than adult social care and children’s services. Also, the expectation is that extra revenue raised from the business rates will be used for infrastructure projects rather than maintaining services.

Thus, the trend towards commissioning services out and expecting a greater entrepreneurial approach – even from services ill-suited to such – to generate income will continue. For libraries this means more of the same: closures, volunteers, community groups, hollowing out, and trusts. Another aspect that’s not often mentioned is transferring responsibility for local services to parish and town councils, funded through the parish precept.

The next area is the scope and work of the Taskforce. Its impact has been rather limited until now with the emphasis on facilitating the government’s and LGA perspective of libraries. So far it has failed to display any genuine leadership of the sector or reach a consensus with those who view it as little more than a vehicle for delivering government policy. But that perhaps shouldn’t be surprising given that it’s funded by the government and therefore the old adage of not biting the hand that feeds you holds true.

The likelihood is that the Taskforce will continue to support changes that make libraries more financially independent of council funding, delivered through a variety of models and governance such as community groups and parishes. Aligned with this will be the drive to generate higher levels of income and attract funding and grants from the private and charity sectors. The creation of trusts, mutuals and perhaps even library authority mergers will almost certainly play a part also.

This all complements the current political view and move to greater localism and regional devolution. Whether the Taskforce will wish to deviate from this approach, or more importantly whether it will be allowed to, and move closer to a position advocated by campaigners and Cilip remains to be seen.

That said, if a week in politics is a long time, then four years is a lifetime and we could all yet be surprised.

It only remains for me to wish everyone a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year and I’ll see you once more on the ramparts in 2016!

 

 

 

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?

Show me the money!

Although somewhat a distraction from the more serious business of library closures and service reductions, librarians will debate the outcomes of the governance proposals at the Cilip AGM on Saturday (20th Sept 2014).

Rather than rehash the arguments from previous posts I refer to the wider debate at the following:

  • Public Library News: post from 2 past presidents express fear over Cilip leadership proposals and the response from Nick Poole, CILIP Councillor and member of the project board for the Governance Review
  • The various posts on Tom Roper’s blog including many comments from both sides of the argument
  • Barbara Band (president of Cilip). Barbra has also discussed the review in the bookseller but unfortunately the article is accessible to subscribers only.
  • And email lists and social media sites such as PUB-LIBS and LinkedIn

I’ve thought long and hard about the proposals and while the modernisation of the governance structure is to be welcomed the undermining of the fundamental democratic principles of a membership organisation is not. Therefore, it is with reluctance that I shall be voting against the changes.

Whether Council is in tune with the general feelings of the membership or we see yet another debacle similar to the defeated name change last year will only be decided by the vote.

On a related note, the recent announcement by Ian Anstice that he has left Cilip due to it being too expensive is disappointing but understandable news and a move I fully sympathise with. For many library staff who have suffered both pay freezes and derisory pay rises during the past few years the cost of membership is a major investment.

At last year’s AGM it was noted that the subscription model would be looked at to consider a more equitable sliding scale of payments. To my knowledge this has not happened and this year we will once again be asked to vote for a rise in membership fees. I suspect there will be many members who will be asking if the ROI of membership justifies the cost and might just decide, like Ian, that it does not. For an organisation that has already lost substantial numbers of members this would be a major blow.

The Leadership Void

I have to admit to admiring mavericks. Individuals that stand above the mainstream and are quite happy to challenge the system or status quo from without or within. Think Tony Benn. Such maverick behaviour is a time honoured and valuable political tradition. Principles before party and all that.

Then again, perhaps I just watched too many films such as Rebel without a Cause, Easy Rider or The Wild One when younger! The phrase ‘what are you rebelling against’, which elicits the reply ‘whadda you got?’ resonates down the decades.

Rebellion seems rife at the moment over the governance review with barbed comments flying thick and fast on LIS-PUB-LIBS. Even without Tom Roper’s resignation to add to the mix the issue was always likely to cause a furore. As far back as February I highlighted elements of the proposals, which to me, went against the democratic principles of a membership organisation. Equally, many other individual members also raised concerns in their feedback to Cilip. Certainly Tom’s resignation has not caused the resulting uproar but it has brought it into sharp focus.

Many campaigners and those outside the profession are both perplexed and as Desmond Clarke observed, appalled, by what they see as an unnecessary distraction to campaigning against library cuts and closures:

“All this energy being spent by the CILIP leadership on changing the structure of its Council at this time is appalling when the library service faces a major crisis and thousands of librarians are losing their jobs. Fiddling with the composition of council at this time is not going to help anyone, neither CILIP, its staff. CILIP members or the public that libraries exist to serve. No one would be affected if the changes were put off for a year or two while everyone focused on ensuring that a library service is available to the millions of people who need it.”

Now I have to say that I see things slightly differently. Despite the unfortunate tendency towards mud-slinging the debate has thrown-up, the governance of our professional body is an important issue. If a revised structure improves the running of the organisation than well and good. It’s been a long time in the planning and deserves proper consideration and debate by the membership.

Such discussion should obviously not distract us from the major changes going on in the library sector. However, debating these changes does not equate to there being any less willingness or time spent on advocating for public libraries either by individual members or Cilip itself. They are not mutually exclusive activities.

Maybe the real point then is not whether such activities distract Cilip from campaigning but whether Cilip is capable of the robust advocacy needed in the rough and tumble of the political arena in the first place. And that’s a whole different question and debate.

Perhaps this highlights the issue of the ‘leadership void’ that so many campaigners have complained about. Not individual leaders of which there are many fine examples in libraries but rather a body that proactively seeks to defend public libraries and staff.

Cilip

One of the difficulties that Cilip faces is that it lacks both the size and political influence that say a combined professional body and union such as the National Union of Teachers has. Neither does it have a strong history of political advocacy, which immediately put it at a disadvantage during the upheaval of the past few years.

A difficult point for many outside, and even inside, the profession to accept is that Cilip has never been a campaigning body. Why this is so is not always clear. It has been argued that the charitable and chartered status of the body sets certain restrictions on campaigning activity. Equally, as a body it has limited resources so has tended to rely on co-operation and conciliation rather than taking a more adversarial approach. Perhaps it has never needed to campaign strongly and the advantages that we have taken for granted until recently, such as professionally staffed libraries, have been given to us rather than fought for and earned.

The profession is, in the main, conservative with a small ‘c’ and overall members have shown a lack of appetite for direct campaigning. Partly, I suspect, this is related to job insecurity and not wishing to put heads above the parapet. Cilip has also become quite a broad based organisation appealing to other sectors such as information and knowledge management, as well as school, academic, and special libraries, which means it’s not just public libraries that have to be catered for.

Nevertheless, we should also recognise that as a professional body Cilip does many things well, such as training, networking, highlighting good practice, raising professional standards, organising conferences, cooperating with other library associations, and contributing to important professional topics e.g. copyright law and ebooks. As such it should be given credit.

However Cilip is not, and is unlikely ever to be, a strong campaigning organisation and those that expect it to be expect too much.

Society of Chief Librarians

Equally, looking to the SCL for political leadership is also unrealistic. The SCL is not an independent organisation but is accountable to the Local Government Association and as such will conform to restrictions imposed by the expectations and policies of the LGA. The recent announcement to support ‘community libraries’ being a case in point.

The SCL enjoys close links to governmental agencies that influence the direction of travel for libraries such as the DCMS and ACE. Over the years this has usually worked to the profession’s advantage. Equally, Ed Vaizey is still happy to talk to the SCL directly (unlike Cilip), which could be viewed as keeping open important channels of communication to the Minister responsible for libraries. Conversely, it also indicates how much SCL is part of the mainstream political machinery and regarded as a safe organisation for promoting the government’s view of libraries.

Now to be fair to the SCL they have always been open about their limitations. When meeting with campaigners in 2012 they made it very clear that:

• They were not and could not be a campaigning body
• As a body they were accountable to the LGA
• They could not criticise local authorities or oppose government or council policy
• They were not a voice for librarians but for local government and that it was CILIP that was the voice for librarians

That is not to say that the SCL does not carry out excellent work. It does. Over the years the body has promoted good practice, encouraged senior librarians to support each other and work together on a regional and national basis, and has been responsible for the Universal offers, to which the addition of a ‘learning’ strand is to be welcomed. The Universal offers are in my opinion one of the best schemes that libraries have undertaken. And for this the SCL should be given full credit.

So it’s unrealistic to expect the SCL to be anything other than it is. Those who expect the SCL to provide independent leadership for the library profession will be sorely disappointed. That is not its raison d’etre.

Rebels with a cause

In the main I am not a reformist. I do not believe that Cilip can be changed sufficiently to provide the strong focus, frank rhetoric, and forceful advocacy that public libraries need. So far this has been left to organisations such as the Library Campaign and Voices for the Library. But such groups, while providing an essential outlet, are not professional bodies or a voice solely for librarians.

The library sector is changing, driven by technology, societal pressures, and political ideology. As a profession we have responded positively to technological and societal changes but it is the ideology that is proving our downfall. In response we need to find another way to challenge the politics, to provide a united front, to fill the leadership void. One that is focussed solely on campaigning for public libraries and in which librarians are the central voice.

Not so long ago I wrote a post speculating about the need for another kind of professional body. At the time Tom Roper who was then a council member, disagreed with me (just as I disagreed with his viewpoint). There is absolutely nothing wrong with holding divergent views – which leads to debate and then hopefully consensus – but equally there comes a point when attacking organisations such as Cilip and the SCL becomes a waste of time and energy particularly if transformation is not possible or, more importantly, if they are not the most effective agents for the change that is needed.

Perhaps it’s time to stop rebelling for the sake of it, for asking ‘whadda you got?’ Public libraries are a cause worth fighting for, what we need is an organisation that can take that fight forward.