LISNews: Librarian News

Kathleen writes "Under G.Bush Jr.'s proposed budget, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is slated to shut down its network of libraries that serve its own scientists as well as the public, according to internal agency documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). In addition to the libraries, the agency will pull the plug on its electronic catalog which tracks tens of thousands of unique documents and research studies that are available nowhere else."

The other side of the budget-coin has Good News For the IMLS. The budget would boost funding for library programs at the Institute of Museum and Library Services to $220.9 million, an increase of nearly $10.3 million over FY 2006.

Babylon Sister sent over some Good News for libraries in PA. Gov. Rendell today proposed a $25.4 billion state budget for fiscal 2006-07 calling for no new taxes, dips in business levies, and increased spending on libraries, education and children's health-care programs.
Overall, the budget would boost state spending by $924 million, or about 3.8 percent. Two-thirds of the new dollars are earmarked for education.
"What I have proposed today is bold and far-reaching," Rendell told a joint session of the House and Senate this morning. "It is necessary and vital for our future. And the good news is that it is affordable."

Texas academic librarian writes to share this story from the Houston Chronicle, "Choosing sports over libraries is only one battle brewing under Gov. Perry's 65% spending directive"

"Standard & Poor's school evaluation services is nonpartisan and designed to help policymakers, educators and parents understand relationships between achievement and investment. In addition to Texas, the study looked at Minnesota, Ohio, Louisiana, Kentucky, Florida, Kansas, Arizona and Colorado, among a number of states considering a 65 percent rule. The study concluded that while the data do not support mandating a minimum instructional spending threshold, monitoring the percentage districts allocate to instruction can be a useful benchmark."

Search-Engines writes "I am opening this RFC in order to centralise discussion concerning actions to be taken against US Congressional staffers who repeatedly revert wars, blank content, engage in slanderous and libelous behaviour, violate WP:NPOV, WP:CIV. The editors from this IP are rude and abrasive, immature, and show no understanding of Wikipedia policy. The editors also frequently try to whitewash the actions of frequent politicians. They treat Wikipedia articles about politicians as though they own it, replacing articles with their sanctioned biographies and engaging in revert wars when other users dispute this sudden change. They also violate Wikipedia:Verifiability, by deleting verified reports, while adding flattering things about members of Congress that are unverified.The editors are currently blocked, but only for a week, so I feel this RFC is needed for the community to comment. I feel that a 1 week block is not enough. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_fo r_comment/United_States_Congress"