PPL Trustees Meeting–May 15

Here is an informal report from the May 15 PPL Trustees meeting.

The trustees were given copies of LPAC’s May 5 Proposed “Roadmap” to a Sustainable Library System (see the document on our blog).

Two significant things happened at the Trustees’ meeting (other than the fact that they had a quorum, which was not the case at their previous meeting):

1. They tabled until next month the vote to approve the Service Goals Implementation Committee report.  Kas DeCarvalho and Mark McKenney both objected to it, Kas mostly because he hadn’t seen it before, and Mark because the plans for the future totally ignored the branches. Joel Stark suggested that Bill Simmons, chair of the meeting, should take note of that, since Kas DeCarvalho (as the Mayor’s representative on the Board) and Mark McKenney (as the Governor’s representative)  represented two major sources of funding for the library.  Bill Simmons still wanted to vote on the original motion to approve but PPL lawyer Dan Prentiss advised him that a motion to table takes precedence over a motion to approve.

2. Kas DeCarvalho apologized for his part in Linda Kushner’s Op Ed claim that the LPAC meetings weren’t being properly reported on to the Trustees and deferred the LPAC report to Mark McKenney, since DeCarvalho hadn’t attended the last LPAC meeting.  Mark McKenney did an excellent job, I think, in explaining the co-location discussion, including why the city and library should be included in funding the study.

Proposed “Roadmap” to a Sustainable Library System

Those attending the Library Advisory Partnership Committee meeting on May 5, 2008, make the following recommendations to the PPL Trustees and the City of Providence:  

1. That PPL continue to provide the current level of library services at the Central Library and all nine branches during the coming fiscal year, with the City contributing $3,300,000 plus the wage and cost of living increases as stipulated in Article 4 of the Memorandum of Agreement.  Any additional funds necessary to fund the present level of services, with the same number of branches and staff, would be paid according to a formula negotiated by representatives of PPL and the City of Providence, with the understanding that this is a temporary situation intended to give LPAC time to devise a plan to move to a financially sustainable library system within the next two years.  

2. That the City and PPL finance a city-wide assessment of the library system, including condition of the buildings, population demographics and trends, and relative costs of renovating facilities vs. selling them and relocating library services in others. This assessment would be begun by July 1 and completed by October 1.
   
3. That LPAC ask the URI Library School to undertake a review of the literature regarding library co-locations to determine their costs and benefits, and to interview librarians and city officials who have participated in this process.  This report would be prepared over the summer and presented to LPAC by August 31.  

4. That the Long-Term Planning Subcommittee of LPAC, with the assistance of the School Committee’s Chief Financial Officer and the Chair of PPL’s Buildings Committee, draft a proposal to be submitted to LPAC for review and revision.  By December 1, the proposal will be submitted to the PPL trustees and to the City for approval.  This proposal will recommend combination of steps to be taken to achieve a financially sustainable library system:

• It will use the data from the City-Wide Assessment to determine the feasibility of selling some existing PPL buildings and the cost of relocating library services currently provided in these buildings.
• It will draw upon the information from the URI study of co-locations to plan the transition of library services at some facilities to co-locations.
• It will encourage area businesses, colleges and universities to “adopt” branches.

 

It will determine the relative type and level of library services appropriate to or conditioned by the co-location and ensure that efforts to provide library services for all ages, populations and patrons be accessible through some combination of central and branch locations.

 

These measures are intended to enable PPL to continue to provide adequate and comprehensive services for library patrons throughout the City, at lower cost to PPL and the City.

Report from LPAC Meeting on May 5

The Long-Range Planning subcommittee reported on their recent May 2 meeting in Public Property Director Alan Sepe’s office.  Sepe mentioned at that meeting that the City was considering retaining a consulting firm to prepare a Library Facilities Survey, which would include a conditions report, demographic report, energy audit, and survey of the current volume of use in each of the ten buildings (including Central). This Master Plan would draw upon the data already collected in recent PPL surveys and should take about 3 months to complete.

As long as the results of the study were regarded as data to be taken into advisement when making long-term plans for the library system that would also include a consideration of historical and political factors as well as demographic and physical factors, then I think we all would welcome such a report. Sepe emphasized that, as of the May 2 subcommittee meeting, the City had not definitely decided to commission this report.

Members of the Long-Range Planning subcommittee also have met with various local people in an effort to begin to find co-locations for some of the branches.  So fair, subcommittee members have met with Councilman Seth Yurdin of Fox Point and with John Sinnott of Struever Bros. about possible Olneyville sites.  More meetings are scheduled.  The subcommittee thanks Councilman Michael Solomon for his help with past and future Olneyville meetings.

Alan Sepe reported on May 2 that work is continuing on the interior of Washington Park, and the interior should be finished by the end of this month. As of May 2, the Library still hadn’t signed an agreement with the City to provide library services in the building for at least the next two years, but we have been told that this will happen.

At the May 5 LPAC meeting, the group felt that a Master Survey of PPL facilities, such as the one the City is considering, would be very helpful in making decisions about moving to a sustainable system.

It was also suggested that we might want to find a graduate student from the URI Library School who would be willling to undertake a research project to determine the successes and possible pitfalls of shifting library services to neighborhood co-locations.  Mark McKenney, LPAC member and PPL Trustee (representing the State of RI), has contacted the director of the URI Library School, who seems fairly certain that she can find someone to do this research this summer.

LPAC members at the May 5 meeting decided that we would like to present an informal resolution to the PPL trustees at their May 15 meeting, and to City officials, urging them to undertake the Master Survey of PPL facilities, as well as to encourage the URI study of co-locations, and to use this information to set priorities for achieving sustainability.

See the LPAC resolution in a separate posting.

The next meeting of LPAC is scheduled for Tuesday, June 3, at noon.

Washington Park Renovation Nearing Completion

Alan Sepe, the City’s Director of Public Properties, reports that work on the Washington Park library building is proceeding according to schedule.

The ceiling has been replaced, as has the wiring for the ceiling lights.  The interior is being repainted and new flooring is being laid. The fire alarm system is being upgraded, new front doors will be installed, and the heating, ventilation, and electrical systems are being checked out.  The City is refilling the oil tank, which was empty.

The exterior of the building is being cleaned and the bricks are being repointed as needed. 

The building will be leased to PPL for the customary $1 a year, with the Library responsible for maintenance.

Alan Sepe expects the building to be finished and ready to be reopened by late May.  Word is that PPL will soon sign the agreement promising to provide library services in the building for at least one to two years after the branch opens its doors again.

It will be a real shame if the Library refuses to sign the agreement after the City has gone to the trouble and expense of renovating the building.  What’s delaying the signing?

PPL Drifting towards. . .What?

PPL and the City of Providence were to renew their Memorandum of Agreement for another year by March 31.  This date has come and gone and, so far as we know, the agreement has not yet been signed. 

 

PPL is insisting that it will have a $1 million deficit next year if it doesn’t cut its services.  [If there really IS the danger of such a huge deficit, which we are not so sure is the case, the Library Reform Group believes that PPL needs to do MUCH more to raise funds, not just threaten to cut services.]

 

At the March PPL trustees meeting, three options for moving to a sustainable library system were presented:

 

• Operate the Central Library and three branches, an option recommended by the Strategic Plan, and one that is deemed sustainable by the PPL Trustees. With this option the Library strongly suggests that the City begin a process, with input from public and interested groups, to identify the facilities of the former branches that it desires to acquire for neighborhood uses such as: places for children after school, community safe havens and access to internet accessible computers. The Library will convey those facilities and materials within to the City at no cost.  

• The second proposal is to move to a structure in which the PPL Board operates a sustainable Central Library, and the city of Providence operates a sustainable branch system.  This plan calls for a 2 year transition period during which PPL would transfer the branch buildings and staff to the City.  The City would agree to continue to fund the library at the levels agreed to in the current MOA and the Library would commit to providing the gap funding to cover the current level of service for the transition period. 

  For the immediate future, nothing would change at the branch system. No branches would close and there would be no lay-offs.  This strategy modifies, but does not eliminate the historic public/private partnership. After two years, the City and Library may still enter into another contractual arrangement for PPL to continue providing managerial services for branch libraries, or to provide some form of support library services at the branch buildings. 

• A third option calls for a transition to a sustainable system, but does not specify what that system would be.  It suggests that we use the current strategic plan as a starting point, assemble an independent group, hire a consultant, and conduct another study to develop a concrete plan and recommendations.  This resulting plan would be implemented within an expressly specified time, perhaps within one to two years. During this transition time there would be no material change in services but at the conclusion there would likely be a reduction in services.  The source of the additional funding necessary to maintain services and locations during the transition period was not included in the proposal. 

At the moment, PPL seems to be favoring the first plan, the City seems to be backing the third plan, and the patrons are unlikely to support ANY of these plans.

At the most recent meeting of the Library Partnership Advisory Committee on April 7, Mark McKenney, who is also the Governor’s representative on the PPL Board of Trustees, gave a report on behalf of the LPAC’s Long-Term Planning subcommittee, in which he strongly urged PPL and the City to consider finding ways to reduce costs without reducing services by exploring co-location opportunities around the city.  If PPL gave up some of its stand-alone library buildings and moved into separate wings of newly built schools or into rehabbed factory buildings or the like, PPL building maintenance costs could be significantly diminished.

It is time for the City and PPL to start thinking more creatively about finding ways to preserve library services throughout the city while still saving money!!

The PPL Finance Committee is meeting at 8 a.m. this Wednesday, April 16, to discuss the Library’s options, and the full PPL Board of Trustees is meeting on Thursday, April 17, at noon.  If you want your voice to be hear on these issues, attend Thursday’s meeting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PPL Trustees Ready to Dismember the System in the Name of “Fiscal Responsibility”

At the February PPL Board of Trustees meeting, Board Chair Lisa Churchville reviewed the core principles of the PPL Corporation: 

·       Charter states its mission is to run “a library” [meaning one?] in Providence, with cursory mention of “branches as advisable.”

·       PPL trustees have a fiduciary responsibility to conserve PPL assets: buildings, books, collections, foundation.

·       The trustees can only go forward according to the plans already identified, as contained in the Steinberg report, the Strategic Planning report, etc.

·       The City of Providence should have oversight over the Providence tax payers’ money [which is used solely for the branches].  

Finance Committee Chair Jim Nagle gave the Financial committee report: 

He presented the FY 09 Budget options: The choices range from retaining the status quo to closing all nine branches while keeping Central or keeping the branches while closing Central—and everything in between. ANOTHER committee was approved to review all of the option.

 The longest discussion (over an hour and a half) came regarding a resolution proposed by long-time trustee Howard Walker. With some minor changes and the addition of a statement regarding “extraordinary” expenses associated with one-time payments for lay-off, mothballing branches, etc., to be paid from the Foundation, the Walker motion passed.   

It appears that PPL will use the Foundation’s funds to dismember the Library, but not to save it.

Notes from the Library Partnership Advisory Committee Meeting on Feb. 15

According to Alan Sepe and Garry Bliss, the roof work at Washington Park is nearly complete.  The City and the Library are now negotiating an agreement whereby, in return for a PPL promise to commit to providing library services at the building for 2-3 years, the City will begin renovations of the interior.  It seems counterintuitive, however, to expect PPL to make this commitment when the fate of all nine branches is uncertain. 

Patricia Raub presented the Voice of the Stakeholders report, with suggestions  from patrons as well as from the Library Reform Group on ways PPL could raise money. 

Ellen Schwartz and Vicki Veh presented the Finance Committee report, which led to a discussion of the alternatives available to deal with the $1 million projected deficit.  Although Ellen (the only CPA in the room) felt that PPL was under-reporting its revenues and over-estimating the amount that would be saved by closing branches, it was Vicki’s position that there were only two real alternatives:  to cut operating costs by cutting facilities or to spend some of PPL funds for specific purposes, with the end result of making the library financially sustainable. 

Along the same lines, Garry Bliss recommended that PPL commit to providing the same level of services as it is currently providing for a defined and finite transition period (3-5 years) and that during this time a consultant knowledgeable in facilities, finance, municipalities and library systems be hired to come up with a sustainable and affordable system by the end of this period.  PPL would have to finance services in the meantime with its own funds. 

The Library Reform Group and the Friends Groups believe that it is as necessary to explore more effective ways of fund-raising during this period as it is to consider ways to cut costs, probably by reducing branch services.  (See Mount Pleasant Friends’ President Maureen Romans’ document on “How to Save the Library without Destroying It.”)

 All of these proposals are open for discussion in the LPAC meetings in March, as no decisions were made at the Feb. 15 LPAC meeting as to specific recommendations LPAC wanted to present to the trustees. Because the City and PPL are supposed to sign the second year’s agreement by the end of March, under the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement, those present at Friday’s meeting decided to meet twice in March:  on Friday, March 7, at noon, and also on Friday, March 21, at noon.  The meeting scheduled for Thursday, March 13, has been cancelled. 

Westerly and Hartford Library Directors Show How It’s Done

At the Library Reform Group’s public forum on February 11, Louise Blalock, Chief Librarian of the Hartford Public Library, and Kathryn Taylor, Executive Director of the Westerly Public Library, demonstrated to a rapt audience of PPL trustees, library staff and patrons that it takes initiative, persistence, and imagination to raise money from public and private donors.

For a fuller account of the forum, click here.

Library Patrons and Staff Recommend PPL Fund-Raising Strategies

Members of all of the PPL Friends groups, as well as the Library Staff Union and contributors to this blog, have made a number of very useful suggestions for improving PPL’s fund-raising track record. The suggestions made by the Library staff, the Friends groups, and other patrons have been presented to the Library Partnership Advisory Committee in a formal report.

Here are some of the report’s highlights:

• Stop passing the buck to the public. The responsibility for fundraising is in the hands of the Library Administration. It seems as if the spiral is downward: “We have no money and we have no future plans because we have no money. . .” This seems like more of the same. The library doesn’t know what it can afford to fund so it can’t raise money because it’s cut down on services, which means that fewer people want to donate money.
• Help establish a friends group at each of the branch libraries to help with some of the small costs associated with the running of the particular library and to help others when needed.
• Organize events that will involve large numbers of people and provide the Library with good publicity. The Providence Preservation Society holds both an annual reception, with tickets at $75/$100, and a house tour, at $25, so that there were events that could attract a wide income range. 
• Put the change boxes back by the checkout counter. When patrons pay a fine, they are likely to drop change and even bills into the box. This will add up.
• Any PPL administrator earning more than $75,000 takes a 10% pay cut—and apply the savings to library services.
• Establish an annual spring or fall festival with all of the libraries involved.
• Organize a series along the lines of AS220s’s “Speak-Out” forums. There are lots of authors who might participate, and the forums could be held at the various branches as well as at Central.
• Have a televised auction.

To read all of the suggestions made, consult the full report.

What Do YOU Think PPL Should Do to Raise Money?

PPL’s current financial woes are as much a result of falling revenue as of rising expenditures.According to the Library’s Annual Reports, “unrestricted program grants” fell from $647,724 in 2006 to $595,369 in 2007 and “restricted grants” fell a whopping $376,204 between 2006 and 2007. In addition, the annual appeal declined by nearly $60,000 between 2006 and 2007.

The two budget busters for the coming fiscal year are the large increases in pension payments ($500,000 for the next 5 years) mandated by the federal government and the continued employment of the children’s specialists whose elimination would gut children’s services at the branches.

Both the loss of corporate and individual support and the increased expenses are occurring at the same time that the city and state governments are undergoing financial meltdowns. Therefore, PPL is going to have to use its own resources and do a dramatically better job of fund-raising to get through the next few years.

What advice do YOU have for PPL? How can this organization turn itself around and start raising more money? Should the library hire more development staff? Should the PPL administration and trustees operate differently than they have done recently? Are there fund-raising events and strategies that you think might yield more revenue for the Library? Suggestions from patrons that are posted on this blog will be compiled and presented to members of the Library Partnership Advisory Committee, which reports directly to the PPL Board of Trustees and the top administrators.