Combination Libraries:
The politician's dream - two (or three) libraries for the price of one! (And a chicken in every pot while we're at it.) This is one of those ideas - the possibility of housing a public library and school library, or college and public library, or other combination in one place - that does beg to be studied. But it must be studied carefully, and realistically before a decision to proceed in this direction is taken. Too often such decisions are the result of political pressure rather than reasoned contemplation, made up front rather than after careful consideration. And, unfortunately, such decisions are representative of the desire among some of us to seek what I will editorially call, "simplistic solutions to complex questions." It just can't be done - at least not successfully. 

So why do we try? Because this appears to be a logical approach to a very expensive prospect. What local official wouldn't at least consider building one building to address two constituent groups rather than have a separate building for each? They'd be crazy not to. But they'd also be unwise to take such a step without careful examination - something that unfortunately is not always done. For those of you who have not heard me tell this story, it may be instructive. (For those of you who have, it may be boring.) In another state, in another time not so long ago, I helped organize a combination school-public library (primarily by meeting with representatives and then writing an interlocal agreement between the parties). In this small town the public library was located in the basement of the courthouse next to the Civil Defense supply of water. The library had done all it could to squeeze every square inch out of its meager allotment of space including bookshelves on wheels that could be pushed aside when it was time for story hour. But the place was not handicapped accessible and had no room for expansion to meet its service needs. The local school with a junior-senior high school and a grade school located across a quadrangle from each other had only one inadequate school library. The school superintendent was a real go-getter - young, looking to make his name and move on to a bigger job. The school district offered land between the two school buildings and only two blocks from the courthouse location for the new library. The building would be equidistant between the two schools connected to them by enclosed walkways, and the building would have an entrance for the public to use when the schools were closed. The city and the school district both needed a new library, the stars were in alignment, and it was a go!

The written agreement between the parties resulted from a delicate dance of willing but sometimes hesitant partners. How would we address the fact that every age of school child would be using the library? How would the "problems" associated with open access to the Internet be addressed in the school setting? What about those "bodice buster" titles in the adult fiction? What was the result of all this? The town got a new library, but some compromises were made:
* Older folks didn't like coming to the library during school hours.
* The collection was "divided," with younger students allowed only on one side of the collection. (Not sure how they decided when the student could handle the "other" side of the collection.)
* The public library board remained, but, by virtue of the school superintendent having the final say (according to the written agreement), functioned more in an advisory rather than governing capacity.
* The school media staff were still paid more than the public library staff - for comparable work.
* The school media staff worked only during school hours, not evenings or weekends.

So did the community have a combination library, or did it have, in essence, two libraries housed in the same physical structure? I guess it depends on how you define library. The point here is, all these issues (and probably some not yet thought of) should be on the table before such an effort is undertaken. The considerations should focus on what services are needed, how they will be delivered, what the real costs will be (monetary, social, service, etc.), how any disagreements will be handled, etc. If the focus is solely or even primarily on how much money will be saved by co-location, then there has not been enough thought put into the process. Believe me - I've been there!

The Bequest:
How lucky - the library has just received word that it will receive $x from the estate of Mr. Jones who passed away six months ago. What a windfall! The board is anxious to pursue a new building for the library, something that was nothing more than a seldom-spoken wish of one or two board members as they went about their business. Now interest has been rekindled. Where do we start? Each board member brings whatever expertise he or she has to the table along with that of the staff. Contacts are made to the System office and to the Commission, and materials and perhaps expertise are gathered for the effort. Early hope turns somewhat sour as it dawns on all involved that the costs of replacing the current library far outstrip the size of the bequest. Good-natured discussion, and sometimes not-so-good-natured wrangling ensue as the possibilities of renovation of the current building, renting of larger quarters, saving for the future, fund raising, talking to neighboring communities, employ an architect or not, and many other possibilities occurring to leaders that are either pursued, revisited or discarded after a time. 

So is the bequest a blessing or a curse? It probably depends on your perspective. If the board can see such a bequest as an opportunity, and if it has either thought ahead of time what it would do if such an opportunity arises (or if it NOW takes the time to really consider its options), this may turn out to be a blessing even if it is not enough for immediately addressing the library needs of the community. 

No Library Necessary:
For quite a number of years, with the clamor among them seemingly increasing, there are those pundits who will make statements such as, "Why do you need a library building at all; everything is on the Web" (or some other variant of this incredibly ignorant statement). Such people usually pride themselves on being "ahead of the curve," "with it" or some other such self-praising description. So how would these folks answer the questions: Where are we supposed to put the kids for story hour or summer reading club? What about those people no longer in school who can't afford a computer - where do they get access to 'everything on the Web'?" 

And yet those who support libraries could with some justification be charged with thinking only in terms of replacing the current library building with another one - without thinking about possible alternatives. We must also consider what has become, since Proposition 13 in California, a part of all our lives - tax revolt. Whether justified or not, it effects everything we do or attempt to do in public life. Do you know of any politicians running on a platform promising to raise taxes? How many of them talk about the reality of sacrificing for the common good? (That's a phrase that almost no one has in their political lexicon any more.) So, are there some things our library is currently doing that it could do more efficiently, or drop altogether? Are there some services really needed by the community that cannot be provided because of lack of budget, space, etc.? What are the board and librarian doing to address these? Must we always think first in terms of the physical plant, or do we need to think more philosophically and abstractly first? Public library boards and librarians are always faced with the dilemma of dreaming great thoughts at the same time they must deal with the reality of limited means. The creative tension of these two poles is always present. The choices are rarely just "either, or," and interested parties must thinking more broadly.

X People = Y Square Feet:
I can't tell you how many phone calls I've taken asking for a straight line formula which will tell architects, librarians, or board members exactly how many square feet a library needs, based on the population to be served. (And I'm sure System Administrators field similar questions all the time.) This is yet another example of seeking a simplistic solution to a complex problem. Are we talking about square feet of useable space, as opposed to outside dimensions? What about "circulation space" (and I'm talking about the architect's use of that term, not the librarian's)? Which people are we counting anyway - just those in our town, or others who come here to shop? Are we planning for the future - do we have an idea of the growth rate of our town? Do we want to explore the possibility of a joint library with a neighboring town in our county? If so, how might that change our perspective on the area needed? Are we building as many square feet as we can afford, or are we determining first what services we need and want to provide? Have we taken into account flexibility for future needs? How has access to Internet changed how we think about space needs (e.g., more space allotted to public access computers)? 

It always surprises me when a professionally trained architect asks me the first question I mentioned above. These are the folks who are supposed to work with the clients to determine first what it is you want to do in this structure. I realize they are just trying to get some idea of size as a starting point, but this is the wrong point at which to start. They know it, and we know it. It's a "quick and dirty" approach likely to color subsequent discussion and less likely to illuminate decision-making than to obscure it. Better to work your way through something like William Sannwald's book, Checklist of Library Building Design Considerations. At least something like this forces us to really think about what the possibilities are. So, if the first thing an architect asks you is how many square feet you want, run the other way to another architect. That person is not doing the job right.

The CDBG Dilemma:
I use this title, not to criticize the current practice of the state's Department of Economic Development to disallow library building projects under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) monies, but to criticize the mindset that would allow this to be so. CDBG grant monies may be used for community infrastructure projects such as sewers and roads, and for community enhancement projects such as senior centers, congregate housing, and low-income housing. But they may not be used for public library buildings. Is there anything you can think of that would make your community more appealing than a brand, spankin' new public library on Main Street? Anything local real estate agents would drive past any more often (along with the schools)? Probably not. Yet we don't tend to think of libraries as really improving the quality of life of a community. There was some disagreement among interested parties during the last Unicameral session about whether or not libraries are as important as local fire trucks. It's probably as much a waste to debate this as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin - because few, if any, people will change their minds. But it is worth considering if we really believe that adequate, local public libraries do improve the quality of life in our communities. If we don't believe that, we will be hard-pressed to convince others of that, and maybe we ought to move on to another field of endeavor.

Final Thoughts:
This piece has rambled on long enough, but I'd like to leave you with a few final thoughts:
* As you plan local library service, don't limit your options; think outside the proverbial "box."
* Plan for the future as best you can, not just with the money you have in hand.
* Fit your library to the services your community needs, not your services to the size of library you either have or think you can afford.
* Don't jump to quick solutions that really don't address the needs long term. What good does it do to build a library that will be inadequate in a few years?
* Don't turn into either a Luddite or a total "Techie;" one day, technology will be so much a part of our lives that it will be thought of as a means of accomplishing what we need to do rather than as a "frill" or a toy. (We're almost there now.)
* Take your time to consider carefully your options. Don't rush into decisions if you are not comfortable with them. 
* Trust your own instincts. You probably know what your needs are better than local politicians and architects. Tell them what you need, not the other way around!
* Insist constantly and consistently on resources adequate to meet the library needs of your community. Write a long-range, strategic plan so that you are ready in case of any windfall resources, interested politicians, etc.
* Live long and prosper