Deus Ex Machina: Why Has the Library Consolidation Study Been Ignored?

Fred Voltz lives in Bellingham and has worked in both corporate management and as an entrepreneur in the areas of operations, finance and real estate.

Editor’s Note: The first article by Fred Voltz on library consolidation appeared on page 6 of the March 2009 issue. Bellingham Public Library Director Pemela Nyberg Kiesner responded in the May issue, page 6. A second article by Fred Voltz appeared on page 7 of the June issue.

You have to give those ancient Greeks their due. Deus ex machina (literally meaning “god from the machine”) is a plot device stretching back to Euripides in which a person or thing appears “out of the blue” to help a character overcome a seemingly unsolvable difficulty.

That “thing” appearing out of the blue to help our local character (Whatcom County’s public libraries) overcome a seemingly unsolvable difficulty (a dwindling piggy bank) takes the form of the publicly-funded September 1977 Holt consulting study.

This pertinent study’s useful contents continue to be willfully ignored by both library systems’ senior managements and boards of directors as a means for alleviating their current operating problems. Clinging to status quo organization charts and operating structures that no longer serve the community doesn’t align with falling budgets.

Persons with oversight duties at both library systems continue to congratulate themselves on their perceived model of cooperation, while sidestepping implementation of key core recommendations in the Holt study. The study’s official title: “Guidelines for Achieving Cost Effective Library Service for the Residents of Whatcom County, Washington: A Feasibility Study for the Bellingham Public Library and the Whatcom County Library.”

You might ask why this distant study is relevant today. It is relevant because our two public library systems continue to make material cutbacks in patron services with the imminent threat of much more to come, while simultaneously asking voters for tax increases to continue the current, illogical construct.

For 32 years since the final report, no effort has been made by the Bellingham or county library systems toward implementing the Holt study’s full consolidation recommendations. Such a full consolidation would eliminate duplicate administrative expenses and improve operations generally. The very people responsible for prudent library operations would have much to lose in a consolidated system and hence, have steadfastly refused to explore options or do thorough analytical work towards consolidation.

Could two library directors, two assistant directors, two community outreach coordinators, two children’s librarians, two circulation directors, and all other duplicated administrative/management positions in the two organization charts, be objectively justified in a consolidated system? Has either library system examined how many managers they have on staff versus staff actually delivering patron services? How many supervisors are genuinely necessary? How many senior managers have been and are being laid off in previous and upcoming budget cuts versus rank-and-file staff reductions of those who actually deliver services to the public? How many administrators would be needed in one public library system? Should voters award more tax money to perpetuate such inefficiencies and continue the wasting of finite resources when the public struggles to pay its personal bills and cannot invent revenue to keep up with inflation and reduced incomes?

The 1977 Holt study considered four alternatives:

• Continue library service with two separate libraries;

• Have the Whatcom County Library supply service under contract to the city of Bellingham;

• Have the Bellingham Public Library supply service under contract to county residents; and,

• Create a regional library.

Interestingly, the study suggested the creation of a regional library system beyond just Whatcom County, one that might include San Juan and Skagit Counties, as well as Snohomish and Island Counties. Let’s be very clear: In 32 years, no progress has been realized toward this achievable, sensible end. The concept hasn’t even been discussed by the library boards or our local state legislators if enabling statutes require enactment.

Taking the regional library concept to the next logical level, why aren’t struggling library systems (including both public and higher education institutions) banding together for administrative economies, materials’ purchasing power and less duplication of collection materials? Such a regional concept would naturally include Skagit Valley College, Whatcom Community College, Bellingham Technical College, and Western Washington University, along with higher education institutions in Snohomish County. School systems, counties/cities and all other manner of governmental entities might consider such consolidation of similar operations across arbitrary boundaries given the shaky condition of tax revenues present and future. We have seen no local library leadership toward this worthy goal.

A regional library concept has been recently implemented in Stevens County, Washington (northeastern corner of the state) and Hennepin County/Minneapolis, Minnesota. Why is this end so stubbornly opposed in northwestern Washington by management and library trustees to the public’s detriment?

Moreover, Jan Walsh, Washington’s State Librarian, unambiguously encourages such regional integration, which she knows from her years of experience minimizes administrative expense and duplicate collections, and creates volume buying power for subscriptions, reference materials, books, and audio-visual items. Our local library officials have conveniently dismissed this informed person’s opinion, too. Whatcom County does not need to emulate the two uncooperative library systems of King County and city of Seattle, where administrative duplication and waste similar to Whatcom County’s takes funds away from quality, efficient services to the public.

Instead of worrying about senior management retaining their positions, the fiduciary responsibilities of library trustees and their senior management employees is to ensure the best possible library system for the public they are paid to serve. This simple truth has not been honored in Whatcom County when the subject of full library consolidation was again raised last fall.

After nine month’s delay and public pressure, the two systems produced an underwhelming four-page report that totally omitted any financial or operations analysis of a consolidated, reformulated library system. Additionally, it suggested another publicly-funded consulting study to do work the library systems should be internally capable of performing without prejudice in favor of the status quo. When in doubt, hiring another consultant at public expense seems to be the operating mantra when challenging tasks present themselves.

The Holt study details a pre-Internet Books by Mail Service for remote areas a bookmobile would have a hard time cost-effectively reaching. With unstable fuel prices, global warming issues and shrinking library budgets, why isn’t management exploring the partial or even full replacement of bookmobile services with a materials-by-mail/internet process? (U.S. Postal Service’s book rate is still a great value; the Service has an extensive, existing distribution system covering every inhabited corner of the county and stands ready for library use.) No steps have been taken to pursue this option in 32 years.

Another ignored Holt study suggestion bearing potential benefits today: Why not arrange with the Fraser Valley Regional Library system for Point Roberts residents to use the nearby Tsawwassen library branch and meld this remote, proportionately expensive and hard-to-serve Whatcom County library branch into the Fraser Valley system? Such a cross-border arrangement needs Federal intervention to become a reality (local governments cannot make international treaties/contracts), yet could be a brilliant model for judicious public service provision (fire, law enforcement, utilities, roads, libraries, etc.) along the entire U.S./Canadian border.

A Fraser Valley/Whatcom County agreement to provide Point Roberts’ library services conceivably supplants a relatively high-cost operation and few people served with a relatively low cost one because of a much larger population base over which to apportion fixed costs. Have library management contacted Rick Larsen, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell to explore this possibility? Again, the library has had 32 years to deputize someone to analyze this option, but no one has bothered to act.

Local library senior managements and their boards fear a loss of power and elimination of duplicate administrative positions, which have grown exponentially since 1977, with library system consolidation. These same persons have the unambiguous responsibility to explore such a consolidation as part of their job descriptions, but have a decided conflict of interest in promoting a full and fair analysis. Should such parochial considerations trump the broader public interest?

Even if these individuals arrange for yet another consultant study, which will take many months to complete and cost many thousands of dollars, one openly wonders if the final work product will objectively reflect the public’s best interests, or represent a not-so-subtle bias toward preserving the status quo? And after all, why should the original consulting work be duplicated when its central tenets hold up astonishingly well after all of these years?

The libraries’ boards have repeatedly refused to engage the finance staffs of Whatcom County and Bellingham to perform any updated consolidation analysis; apparently if library management is incapable of assembling a financial and operations analysis for a revised, consolidated library organization. However, a library director unable to perform research, generate creative resources and answer tough questions seems inconceivable given the formal training required by his/her profession.

Perhaps a more independent body needs to be invited to review library consolidation and general operations for more strategic, modern ways of serving the public. Presuming everything in the two systems today must be automatically carried over to one consolidated system is not a forthright starting premise for considering revised library operations. Library management holds this distorted thought as a pretext for quickly dismissing consolidation’s prospective benefits.

Two other West Coast public library systems faced cataclysmic changes and fundamentally reinvented themselves by bringing in fresh thinking and methods to solve their problems. Our libraries’ overseers belong to multiple professional organizations, and know of these major successes but chose not to reveal them in their four-page report. Nowhere in the four-page report were any alternatives to “business as usual” cited or reported, much less applied to our local library systems.

Jackson County, Oregon (Medford) lost virtually all its $8 million annual budget in 2006 because federal timber revenues were eliminated. The libraries closed for six months and most staff were laid off. After two failed bond issues, the county issued a request for proposal (RFP) for operators of the system. Two responses were received and the new, final, annual budget of $3.1 million led to reformed operations that increased services such as child care, outreach to the homebound, and children’s story times. These positive service outcomes were achieved with materially less expense and no new taxes.

Riverside County, California faced a similar problem when the city of Riverside suddenly refused to operate the county libraries spread over a vast geography. The county sought a creative public-private partnership and succeeded in expanding branch libraries (24 to 33), increased employment (119 to 193), developed an early literacy program, generated $5 million in grant funding, increased the book budget from $180,000 to $1,950,000, more than doubled the total weekly hours of operation, and included a community college library in its organization. All of these service enhancements were accomplished without increasing taxes, changing funding sources or creating additional patron fees. Politicians who voted to implement the changes 12 years ago are running for re-election based on the success of the program.

Why haven’t the Bellingham or county library systems begun a dialog with providers of library services to determine if Whatcom County could benefit, as other library systems have already, from fresh thinking and alternatives the current incumbents seem incapable of generating or even discussing, left to their own devices?

Will our elected officials and the public bring pressure to bear for reform and consolidation at the libraries? Or, will it be more of the same: service and staff cuts (while senior management is exempt from the cuts), emotionally-tinged public pleas to temporarily ‘save’ the current, indefensible system with unnecessary tax hikes in a poor economy, and exaggerated melodrama and threats to avoid making the changes that are at least 32 years overdue?

Washington statutes suggest the Whatcom County library system would need to annex the Bellingham city library system if one consolidated library system is to be realized. At the current taxing levels and Bellingham’s collective property values, it has been stated this would generate $1 million less in property tax revenue than monies currently appropriated from the Bellingham general fund budget for the Bellingham city library system. Unless there is a rebate to Bellingham residents of the general fund library appropriation, perhaps in the form of pro rata water bill rate decreases, Bellingham city residents would be paying for library services twice … an unacceptable situation. Therefore, a formula for returning duplicate tax monies to Bellingham residents would be mandatory under consolidation.

One of the conclusions of the July 2009 library report said in part: “... there would be significantly less money available to continue the existing level of service with the current funding formula.” Sequential logic suggests that when duplicate layers of management and administrative expense are stripped away and antiquated operating procedures updated, operating costs would decline without impacting services to the public. Why would the same amount of money be needed under an improved library construct? If Jackson County, Oregon and Riverside County, California can accomplish better service and more programs, why not Whatcom County? What can be lost in at least exploring the possibility rather than ignoring it, as the current library incumbents have done to date?

One recent example of the chronic, dismissive action toward public input and interest occurred when the Bellingham library director explained to her board in their June 2009 meeting that she has a stock reply when members of the public (she admitted to several contacting her) suggest consideration of relocating the main library to one of the many existing, empty big box stores along the Guide to solve an alleged space shortage.

“The library will not consider any location outside of the central business district,” she stated. This unwavering, unsubstantiated statement defies compelling economics (perhaps saving even more than one-half the cost of a brand new, multi-story building downtown), environmental judiciousness and greater service to a broader population. Such rigid, unresponsive and unrealistic thinking by public officials gives their organizations a deservedly poor reputation within the public-at-large for hubris, bad judgment and ignoring public opinion, as they play fast and loose with the public treasury. It is so easy to spend other people’s money, isn’t it?

Another example of dismissive library board action toward the public is the unanimous vote of the county library board to place a levy increase on the November ballot. No effort has been made to better use existing monies by: 1) temporarily suspending pre-conceived notions of current library operations and comprehensively exploring the library system consolidation alternative; 2) implementing other ignored Holt study recommendations (Point Roberts/Tsawwassen, bookmobile alternatives); and, 3) actively exploring public-private operating partnerships.

Totally dismissing widespread economic hardship in the community it allegedly serves, the county library board had no compunctions about recommending a tax increase for families already struggling to pay bills. And it is not just one tax increase but multiple tax increases because every business owner, farmer, property owner and landlord must add those new costs onto the price of goods and services they exchange with the public. This levy increase illogically suggests that the county system should be rewarded for mismanaging its existing resources by receiving yet more money to spend. It is akin to giving an alcoholic or drug addict another drink or dose of drugs to help him/her surmount the addiction when the addiction will only be perpetuated.

You may also be surprised to learn that the county library system’s community outreach coordinator spent publicly-paid time assembling literature titled “Frequently Asked Questions on the Library Levy Lid Lift” to promote passage of the November levy. Such a use of taxpayer money likely skirts laws pertaining to public employees spending their work time on election/levy-related activities. At a minimum, such work defies the spirit if not the letter of our election laws.

The Bellingham library director and her board have been publicly asked to disclose the cumulative cost of perennially rehabilitating the unsound Fairhaven branch building. No total number has been offered for the public to weigh and decide if the multi-million dollar expense over just the last 40 years of its life is worth the past, current and future outlays.

The public will also be surprised to know that during a July 2009 progress report on the latest round of Fairhaven renovations, the library board and management congratulated themselves on keeping current renovation expenses under budget. Just one ‘small problem’ with this current project arose: The contractors and project managers took great pains to explain and disclose that while rotten wood, water intrusion and missing brick mortar have been addressed, nothing has been done to deal with the fundamental seismic instability of this unreinforced brick building.

Think back to the 2001 Nisqually earthquake and the extensive damage visited on all those unreinforced brick buildings in the Pioneer Square district of downtown Seattle. This same prospect faces the Fairhaven branch in a major earthquake. The latest round of fixes leaves the community with an active, serious public safety gamble if the building is occupied when an earthquake occurs. Inside finish work and the exterior stucco walls, to be redone during the current repair cycle, must be destroyed and redone again when and if seismic work is ever undertaken. There’s nothing like paying for something twice to assure the public that its tax money is being well spent.

Neither library senior management nor their oversight boards are elected directly by the public; they are appointed by elected officials in Bellingham and by the incumbents in the county library system. “Going along to get along” is a top priority at these board meetings rather than asking probing questions of management or tasking management with important, strategic projects. Case in point: The July library board meetings included no meaningful questions or time for trustees to read and reflect on the consolidation report’s underwhelming contents before quickly calling for a vote unanimously approving the report so business as usual could continue.

What can the public do to alter the course of these repeatedly unwise choices so opposed to the public’s need for quality, cost-effective public library services in Whatcom County?

Take a very long, hard look at the bond levy increase proposed for non-Bellingham residents of Whatcom County and ask yourselves what has been done to minimize administrative expense and what cost cuts management (not the non-management staff) has and will be taking. Ask how reserves, which have been recklessly and silently depleted for years, will be restored for sound future operation. Ask why individual families must reduce their expenses to reflect economic realities and similar steps are not required of public institutions. Ask why the levy hike has been placed on a more-expensive-to-stage, odd-year election ballot that the community must fund. Even if the electorate defeats the November levy hike, ask how much more public money will be spent by the library to stage subsequent elections until they somehow cajole enough voters into giving them more money without making overdue operations changes.

Ask Bellingham city council candidates how they will require the city’s library system to eliminate duplicate management and cut administrative costs by merging into a county/regional system if those same candidates want your votes at election time.

Call the library directors, Joan Airoldi (county) 384-3150, extension 201 and Pamela Nyberg Kiesner (Bellingham) 778-7221. Ask them the same pertinent questions asked in this article and assess their responses. So far, the official silence has been deafening in response to these fact- and event-based questions.

To recap the big, strategic questions: Will existing local libraries and their boards continue to rigidly defend the status quo by dismissing viable alternatives suggested by their consultants and the public they allegedly exist to serve? More specifically, will our local library overseers honestly and diligently seek readily-accessible deus ex machina-type solutions (e.g., regional consolidation, public-private partnerships, administrative/management reductions, operations changes) to make genuine progress in running a better, fully unified library system? Or will they stubbornly hew to the same unsustainable policies that have brought our library systems to an unpleasant present? §