Anonymous Patron writes “Cincinnati Enquirer Reports on one libraries response to the big cuts in Ohio. The Clermont County Public Library is considering charging patrons not only to check out feature films, but also to use the Internet on library computers.
The library board unanimously approved a tentative 2006 budget Monday that would make up for an expected cut in state money by charging $1 for each popular DVD or videotape title rented.
“That’s a leisure kind of thing,” said board member Tony Cardinal. “… It’s going to come to a point where everything can’t be free any more. It just can’t be.”
Board President Joe Braun also asked the library staff to look into the possibility of charging for Internet usage.”
Focusing on “leisure” items?
What is a leisure item in this case? I know that there is a supposedly commonly-accepted collection development answer to such a question. In this world there is an infinite variety of people with very different tastes. “Free Library” may certainly become not free at all for everyone the way this is going.
I seriously do wonder if Blockbuster and other video rental outlets in Clermont County will get increased traffic if this is passed through. If this is part of that library district’s tax budget then there is a problem. Just as much as the state’s budget has to be adopted by July “tax budgets” for local political subdivisions are due to their respective County Budget Commissions at roughly the same time. Hmm.
88 counties and slightly over 200 library districts. I have a suspicion that this is going to take off as an idea across the state, especially since wonderful folks in Columbus have decided that libraries need to make up funding locally as they do not want to restore anything and probably would prefer to cut harder. Making such wide-ranging charges kinda defeats the point of a library the way they have historically been structured in Ohio as far as I can tell.
Re:Focusing on “leisure” items?
I don’t think charging $1 for a movie will make library patrons head to Blockbuster. Patrons pick up films while checking out books or attending programs–Blockbuster would be an extra trip and cost more than a dollar. I worked in a public library (NJ) that charged $1 per video and while we got the occasional complaint, the collection was *very* highly utilized.
Most of the movies at the library where I grew up (also NJ) were free, but there was a cart of new releases that were $1. Again, these items were checked out. It would be ideal not to pay for anything from a library, but I think charging a small fee for movies is better than cutting hours or firing employees.
Re:Focusing on “leisure” items?
A key problem in Ohio is the tendency of sliding down slippery slopes. If we let such charges go ahead now, what is to say that in two years when we are in this mode again the legislature further cuts funding and just tells libraries to raise their fees to make up the difference? Ohio is a state where right now the “state universities” are almost effectively privately funded as they barely get 10% of their operating revenue from the General Assembly. I fully suspect that, given enough time, libraries will be totally privatized in this state and operating more like Blockbuster than anything else.
Dangerous Ground
I don’t want to be fear-mongering here but I am concerned about the implications of a decision to charge for services in libraries. I think this is dangerous ground for libraries to be wandering into without giving it a great deal of thought about the implications of that action. One huge concern that jumps to my mind is the possibility of a lawsuit brought because of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). Anytime libraries are seen to be in competition with private industry, it leaves us open to scrutiny under this agreement. Charging for popular videos sounds an awful lot like competing with Blockbuster to me.
Generally speaking, under GATS, government services are not allowed to compete with services offered by the private sector. Article I(3) of GATS defines a government service by applying two tests: first, the service must not be offered on a commercial basis and second, the service must not be provided in competition with other service providers. If a service offered by the government fails these tests, then the government must withdraw from providing the service or fund all other providers equally.
Okay so that sounds pretty scary, doesn’t it?
So I should say that the WTO states that the definition is straightforward and covers “social security schemes and any other public service, such as health or education, that is provided at non-market conditions”. So libraries should be included, right? But not everyone is sure that this understanding will hold up in a court challenge because the agreement doesn’t state those specific exemptions in the definition. I wouldn’t want to get to close to that line as I’m not sure that libraries would win. And then we’d really be in trouble.
Re:Focusing on “leisure” items?
It would be ideal not to pay for anything from a library
At the library in my town you have to pay for everything whether it is entertainment or not. The city figured out this ingenious scheme called taxes. I have to pay them and the library then uses my money to buy all the stuff they have. I would not be against my taxes being lower and people that borrow “Die Hard II” from the library paying a fee for the priviledge. I know we live in a world of gray and it is hard to determine was is an entertainment item and what is an educational item but let’s start with “Die Hard II” as entertainment and work from there. Of course even “Die Hard II” is educational if you want to know how to deal with terrorist that have taken over an airport.
GATS?
I’ve not been paying enough attention obviously:
In the US, this would mean that public school, and Medicare/poor access to health care are both competing with private providers – and both charge fees. In fact, just about the only thing that’s not competing with private providers is the mint (although we do have local currencies, hrmmm), the IRS, and the presidency/congresscritters. Space program w/multi-million dollar contracts? Private launches. Forest service w/$5 fees? Private land reserves for ducks, etc, etc.
— Ender, Duke_of_URL
“Paying” for libraries
Yes, everything that exists must be paid for. Even clean air.
The question is, how’re we making people pay. And what things should be paid for by how much.
Taxes are proportional (and for the very lowest incomes (or people with a lack of income), they don’t pay at all). An upfront funding scheme is different than placing a fee barrier in front of using a resource.
I’m not adverse to a fee barrier on larger uses of a shared resource: You want to check out more than one movie at a time, or more than one during a week/month (although a month is probably too long a time period…), then you pay money for that privilege. I don’t want to see fees for a reasonable number of books (min: 2 or 3/day) being checked out. I don’t want to see a fee for being able to enter the library.
Conversely, if they do start paying $1 fees, does that mean the library will start buying more mainstream flicks? 😉
— Ender, Duke_of_URL
Re:Dangerous Ground
I think that the dangerous ground here has been demonstrated by California’s example – where I am a librarian. Here we charge for just about every library service and we fine for any free service for which the rules are not followed. However, our funding is still being cut.
Charging fees only temporarily fends off the inevitable budget decisions of reduced hours and staff layoffs vs. raising taxes. I’ve only known of one library system in my county eliminating one fee after it was imposed. Once the public gets used to it, it’ll be there forever. It’s terrible that it’s so ineffective.
Libraries instead need to take a look at what they offer and to whom, reduce their mission (perhaps not all have genealogy collections, career centers, and literacy tutors as they are handled by other agencies) and focus on what’s left such as online resources, circulating collections, children’s rooms – and make their libraries back into appealing places where staff (including me) wear fewer hats and therefore provide better customer service. Then politicians and voters will start backing us again.
Right now we’re catering to “library fans” with what we offer. They suggest we could offer another service, and we jump to it thinking we’ll get a broader cross section. Instead we just make the same library fans happier/prouder. The fees suggestion is bad, don’t get me wrong, but the dangerous ground was walked on when we listened to our own press decades ago. We need to look at who we are, what we were trained to do, and just do that well. The rest will follow.