R I C K K R U M W I E D E , O W L SJ O H N T H O M P S O N , I F L SS T E F M O R R I L L , W I L SCreating More Effective...
S U E C A N T R E L L , M W F L SJ I M G I N G E R Y , M C F L SR I C K K R U M W I E D E , O W L SJ E S S I C A M A C P H...
The process so far
Why did SRLAAW undertake this process? Increased demands with no increase in resources formany years The aging of Chapte...
Intended outcome from the process“Recommendations and action steps to addressconcerns about and barriers to systemreconfig...
Stated Values Transparency Inclusiveness Dialogue
Timeline/Process (part 1) Identify specific services and other areas of concern to be addressedthrough the process Surve...
Identify specific services and other areas of concern to beaddressed through the process Awareness of library system and ...
Survey Wisconsin libraries about the identified areas 6 surveys 152 – 197 responses A few observations: Value of publi...
Hold 2‐3 webinars with states that have undergone systemconsolidation 2 webinars: Massachusetts and Illinois 3 additiona...
Hold a SRLAAW retreat 3 representatives per system (system, resource library, other) Focused around the six content area...
Prepare a list of recommendations and action steps based onthe output from the retreat Work continued Feb – today! Less ...
What’s next?
What’s next? Present the recommendations and action steps for comment andfurther discussion to the wider library communit...
Why so delayed? Inclusiveness Buy-in Ultimate goal: positive change
The preliminaryrecommendations
Preliminary Recommendation Eliminate the statutory requirement forresource libraries. (s. 43.16)
Preliminary Recommendation Increase the required county payments forlibrary services from 70% to 100% oflibraries’ costs ...
Preliminary Recommendation Resolve the unfair situation created byexempting counties that operateconsolidated county libr...
Preliminary Recommendation Eliminate the requirement for public librarysystems to engage in cooperation andcontinuous pla...
Preliminary Recommendation Add a section on state-required publiclibrary system annual reports for reportingand documenti...
Preliminary Recommendation Replace the existing population standardsfor public library systems (s. 43.15) withnew demogra...
Preliminary Recommendation Establish administrative standards forpublic library systems that are used tomodify the curren...
Preliminary Recommendation Establish service standards for public librarysystems that are used to modify the currentstatu...
Why service standards? Useful as a framework for planning andevaluating services systems provide tomember libraries Reco...
Standards focus on key service areas Advocacy and Promotion Collaborative Services Continuing Education Delivery Inte...
Examples of draft CE standards The library system surveys member libraries on an annual basis to determinethe continuing ...
How can you get involved?
How can you get involved? Suggest a group or individual to be part of the vettingprocess. Variety of viewpoints-- Former...
The Committee Sue Cantrell, MWFLS Jim Gingery, MCFLS Rick Krumwiede, OWLS Jessica Macphail, RacinePL Rebecca Petersen...
Questions?
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Creating more effective public library systems rk

333 views
251 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
333
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
109
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Rick
  • Rick
  • Rick
  • Rick
  • Stef
  • Stef
  • Awareness: 197Funding: 180Library law: 157Resource sharing: 165Service implications of technology: 154Technology infrastructure: 152--Higher population libraries completed more across the board
  • --Transcripts available on the process website--Both system and library perspectives represented--
  • Stef
  • Stef
  • Rick
  • Rick
  • Rick
  • Rick/John
  • John
  • Rick
  • John
  • Rick
  • John
  • Rick
  • John
  • Rick
  • John
  • Rick
  • John
  • John
  • John
  • John
  • Creating more effective public library systems rk

    1. 1. R I C K K R U M W I E D E , O W L SJ O H N T H O M P S O N , I F L SS T E F M O R R I L L , W I L SCreating More Effective PublicLibrary Systems
    2. 2. S U E C A N T R E L L , M W F L SJ I M G I N G E R Y , M C F L SR I C K K R U M W I E D E , O W L SJ E S S I C A M A C P H A I L ,R A C I N E P LR E B E C C A P E T E R S E N ,M C L SS T E V E P L A T T E T E R , A L SK R I S T A R O S S , S W L SM A R L A S E P N A F S K I , W V L SJ O H N T H O M P S O N , I F L SD A V I D W E I N H O L D , E S L SS T E F M O R R I L L , W I L SCreating More Effective PublicLibrary Systems
    3. 3. The process so far
    4. 4. Why did SRLAAW undertake this process? Increased demands with no increase in resources formany years The aging of Chapter 43 The economic environment in Wisconsin and otherstates
    5. 5. Intended outcome from the process“Recommendations and action steps to addressconcerns about and barriers to systemreconfigurations, as well as addressing how systemsremain effective in meeting the member library needsinto the future”
    6. 6. Stated Values Transparency Inclusiveness Dialogue
    7. 7. Timeline/Process (part 1) Identify specific services and other areas of concern to be addressedthrough the process Survey Wisconsin libraries about the identified areas (January 2013) Hold 2‐3 webinars with states that have undergone system consolidation(January 2013) Hold a SRLAAW retreat (February 2013) Prepare a list of recommendations and action steps based on the outputfrom the retreat (originally March 2013 – now May 2013) Part 2?
    8. 8. Identify specific services and other areas of concern to beaddressed through the process Awareness of library system and library services Funding Library law Resource sharing Service implications of technology Technology infrastructure
    9. 9. Survey Wisconsin libraries about the identified areas 6 surveys 152 – 197 responses A few observations: Value of public library systems to member libraries Focus on the end-users Library-oriented services are key Innovation is a value…and a concern
    10. 10. Hold 2‐3 webinars with states that have undergone systemconsolidation 2 webinars: Massachusetts and Illinois 3 additional states in report: California, Iowa, Ohio A few observations: The signs Incentives & mandates Communication & transparency Plan ahead!!!
    11. 11. Hold a SRLAAW retreat 3 representatives per system (system, resource library, other) Focused around the six content areas Large/small group discussions around best practices/the future (longand short term) A few observations: Expectations A beginning
    12. 12. Prepare a list of recommendations and action steps based onthe output from the retreat Work continued Feb – today! Less “transparent” for a reason… Some observations: Collaborative effort Beyond “my system” Respect for local
    13. 13. What’s next?
    14. 14. What’s next? Present the recommendations and action steps for comment andfurther discussion to the wider library community. (May 2013) Get feedback on the list of recommendations from the community andfrom focus groups of supporters, critics, and others. (May – July 2013) Revise recommendations and action steps based on feedback received.(July 2013) Present the recommendations to SRLAAW for endorsement. (August2013)
    15. 15. Why so delayed? Inclusiveness Buy-in Ultimate goal: positive change
    16. 16. The preliminaryrecommendations
    17. 17. Preliminary Recommendation Eliminate the statutory requirement forresource libraries. (s. 43.16)
    18. 18. Preliminary Recommendation Increase the required county payments forlibrary services from 70% to 100% oflibraries’ costs by January 1, 2017.(s. 43.12(1))
    19. 19. Preliminary Recommendation Resolve the unfair situation created byexempting counties that operateconsolidated county libraries or joint city-county libraries from having to pay librariesin neighboring counties for the service theyprovide. (s. 43.12)
    20. 20. Preliminary Recommendation Eliminate the requirement for public librarysystems to engage in cooperation andcontinuous planning with other types oflibraries in the system area as specified ins. 43.24(2)(L).
    21. 21. Preliminary Recommendation Add a section on state-required publiclibrary system annual reports for reportingand documenting collaborative activitieswith other libraries and organizations.
    22. 22. Preliminary Recommendation Replace the existing population standardsfor public library systems (s. 43.15) withnew demographic and organizationalstandards.
    23. 23. Preliminary Recommendation Establish administrative standards forpublic library systems that are used tomodify the current statutory provisions ins. 43.17, as appropriate. Governance Management Planning Finance Personnel
    24. 24. Preliminary Recommendation Establish service standards for public librarysystems that are used to modify the currentstatutory system service requirements.(s. 43.24(2))
    25. 25. Why service standards? Useful as a framework for planning andevaluating services systems provide tomember libraries Recognize each system and its memberlibraries’ needs are unique
    26. 26. Standards focus on key service areas Advocacy and Promotion Collaborative Services Continuing Education Delivery Integrated Library System Interlibrary Loan Non-Traditional Library Users Technology Youth Services
    27. 27. Examples of draft CE standards The library system surveys member libraries on an annual basis to determinethe continuing education and training areas that are of greatest interest to, ormost needed by, member libraries. The library system plans all continuing education opportunities in accordancewith the requirements set forth in the Certification Manual for WisconsinPublic Library Directors published by the Wisconsin Department of PublicInstruction, Division for Libraries and Technology. The library system sponsors or co-sponsors a minimum of forty-two (42)contact hours of continuing education opportunities annually for memberlibrary staff and trustees, as well as for library system staff and trustees. The library system ensures that at least fifteen (15) of the forty-two (42) annualcontact hours of continuing education are provided in-person at a locationwithin a reasonable driving distance.
    28. 28. How can you get involved?
    29. 29. How can you get involved? Suggest a group or individual to be part of the vettingprocess. Variety of viewpoints-- Former Library System Directors Library Leaders Political officials Variety of size libraries Regionally diverse representation Participate in a vetting session. Offer feedback: http://bit.ly/17lc5CB Offer questions/comments now or to committeemembers
    30. 30. The Committee Sue Cantrell, MWFLS Jim Gingery, MCFLS Rick Krumwiede, OWLS Jessica Macphail, RacinePL Rebecca Petersen,MCLS Steve Platteter, ALS Krista Ross, SWLS Marla Sepnafski, WVLS John Thompson, IFLS David Weinhold, ESLS
    31. 31. Questions?

    ×