Atherton library and AB 438

[Posted by Moderator]

From: Sherman Hall III
Date: May 29, 2012 8:16:55 AM PDT
To: bwidmer@ci.atherton.ca.us, elewis@ci.atherton.ca.us, jcarlson@ci.atherton.ca.us,  jdobbie@ci.atherton.ca.us, kmckeithen@ci.atherton.ca.us
Subject: Atherton library and AB 438

Dear Atherton Council Members,

I am writing you to express my disappointment and objection to the decision to proceed with choosing Holbrook Palmer Park as the site for the Library/Community Center with a 3-2 vote of the Council. I believe this decision should have been a matter brought before the residents of the town to decide and I still do.

I have lived in Atherton for 45 years and never before have I witnessed the blatant usurpation of the democratic process by the town government over a major issue. This also has been accomplish with the use of a biased steering committee to champion the Park location using taxpayer money. It is just wrong.  

One of the arguments I have heard is that the Library funds available are for Atherton residents with the JPA library system just operating the library and yet the JPA has established the requirements for a large non-resident community under their "needs" study.

One council member has repeatedly argued that the new building remains the property of the Town. I guess the projected revenue stream is attractive to the Town as a source of ongoing income and drives the decision for some council members. Not mentioned in any of the material put forward is the projected staffing for a larger and expanded library and the Town's responsibilty for this additional burden for non-resident use. Apparently new services are to be offerred and usage is projected to increase and quite obviously there will be the need for increase staffing by the JPA administrators. I presume the funds are available through the JPA for additional payroll but what happens in the event they are not at some point? Does the JPA come to Atherton for more money?

Atherton recently embarked on an aggressive program to outsource services to produce exactly the opposite result. Should the day come that the library usage and need to downsize become a necessity or require the town to operate the library on its own the options available have been reduce under AB 438 as other communities have discovered. You need to be aware that AB 438 basically prevents the ability to reduce staff or payroll and not to formally recognize and plan for this is a possible violation of your fiduciary responsibly. This is not a comfortable position for the Town to be in, and it seems you would be setting the stage to forever assume the responsibility for operating a library this size.
This is another reason not to build a library of this size when it is not needed and unforeseen costs not part of the decision making process.

Sherman R Hall III
46 Lilac Dr

The actual language of the bill: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0401-0450/ab_438_bill_20110404_amended_asm_v96.pdf   

California Governor Signs Bill Imposing Stringent Requirements on Privatizing of Library Services
EmailPrint |Reprint/License | Oct 10, 2011

California Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill on Saturday that will impose much more stringent requirements on private contractors seeking to manage the operations of a public library.

The measure clearly targets the business of Library Systems & Services LLC (LSSI), a Maryland-based outsourcing firm. LSSI, which testified against the measure, operates libraries in Camarillo, Moorpark, Redding/Shasta county, and Riverside county.

The measure, AB438, which Brown signed into law, imposes until January 1, 2019 specific requirements if the legislative body of a city or the board of trustees of a library district intends to withdraw from a county free library system and use a private contractor that will employ library staff to achieve cost savings.

According to a summary by the California Library Association, these requirements:

...would include, but not be limited to, publishing notice of the contemplated action in a specified manner, clearly demonstrating that the contract will result in actual overall cost savings to the city or library district for the duration of the entire contract, prohibiting the contract from causing current city or library district employees to incur a loss of employment or specified benefits or an involuntary transfer, and imposing specified requirements on contracts for library services in excess of $100,000 annually.
"Having the ability to scrutinize privatization contracts before they are signed, as Assembly Bill 438 dictates, will allow Californians a voice in ensuring that they are receiving the best library services possible at a fair cost," said Marci Merola, the director of the American Library Association's Office for Library Advocacy. "California has spoken loudly and clearly about the need for public libraries to remain in the control of the public. It sets a precedent that many states can emulate," she said.

The law does not preclude a city, library district, or local government from adopting more restrictive rules regarding the contracting of public services.

Brad King, LSSI's CEO, said he was disappointed by Brown's action.

"Assembly Bill 438 is a thinly-veiled ban on contracting out which will take away responsible options for cities just as state and local budgets are being slashed," King said. "As a result of Governor Brown signing Assembly Bill 438, more communities will be forced to close libraries, library hours will be reduced, and library workers will lose their jobs," he said. King said that the new law was "bad public policy masquerading as 'open government' and 'transparency.' "

The measure was backed by the Service Employees International Union, which represents many California library employees, the Ventura Readers' Book Group, the California Labor Federal, the AFL-CIO and others.

The bill reflects "the same kind of contracting out protections that are currently in the Education Code for schools, such as a fair cost analysis, competitive bidding, identifying the savings to the taxpayers, no job displacement, etc.," the bill's sponsor, Assemblyman Das Williams, D-Santa Barbara, said back in June, according to the California Library Association's blog.

The League of California Cities also testified against the measure, arguing that it interferes with decisions that are best handled by local governments and works against city officials attempting to get the best services for the best price. The Chamber of Commerce, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and some individual cities also opposed the measure.

"LSSI remains steadfast to our mission of helping local governments serve the public throughout California to provide the best public libraries for their communities," King of LSSI said.

Merola noted that ALA has created a checklist for "communities considering privatization."

"The bigger task at hand is educating Californians on what good library service means. As more and more public services are threatened with privatization, the library community as a whole -- of which LSSI is a part, I'd like to add -- has a responsibility to educate its publics," she said.