Privatizing Libraries--The Debate Goes On

I've posted in the past about library privatization, specifically through the company named LSSI. A recent article brought to my attention through this week's email edition of American Libraries Direct illustrates that the debate is still far from over. The article, titled "Are Privatized Libraries So Bad?", once again explores this hot-button topic that often evokes a passionate response from librarians and library supporters. I will let you read the article and develop your own opinion about whether or not library privatization is desirable or not, but I would like to outline my reasoning as to why I will not support such a move for any library system--especially if the company in question is LSSI.

First of all outsourcing really blurs the lines of responsibility. Public libraries are directly answerable to those in their communities because these individuals pay the taxes that pay for library activities and operations. When a third party enters the mix, this relationship between the library and the community is not as clear-cut. Things get even more complicated based on the terms of the contract a library or city may sign with the third party. When service is poor or issues need to be addressed, who is responsible and how is that party held accountable? When materials are needed, who pays for them? Who gets to decide what materials to purchase in the first place? Before privatization, the library would have to address these issues; after privatization the library or the third party (for example, LSSI) would have to address them according to how the contract delegates responsibility. Time is wasted determining who is supposed to do what (possibly wasted further as solutions are debated).

In a number of its contracts, LSSI has provided managerial support--often in the form of LSSI employees being put into upper management roles. It has also reorganized library staff to include fewer MLIS-to-non-MLIS staff ratios and increased library volunteers. In all fairness, many of these changes seem to have some short-term benefits with addressing management and operational issues. However, librarians as professionals follow a code of ethics that those outside of the professions 1) would likely not recognize and 2) would probably not follow as strictly. This code includes standards on things like providing free information to all without bias, protecting the privacy of patrons, and advocating and protecting intellectual freedom. I was surprised to find no mention in the article of how LSSI addresses any of these issues--and a bit alarmed at the thought that such library ethics may not carry over when LSSI has operational and managerial control. ALA Code of Ethics item VI states: "We do not advance private interests at the expense of library users, colleagues, or our employing institutions." I find it hard to believe that a for-profit company would be able to refrain from advancing their private interests--wouldn't they need to do so to some extent to be able to make a profit?

A third party company like LSSI is a for-profit company. I know public librarians across the nation shudder at the thought of turning a public library into a money-making organization. It goes against our ethics, especially our dedication to free information for all. So how is such a company able to reconcile a for-profit mentality with the public library's mission? Good question, one that is still unanswered. LSSI refuses to disclose where and how it makes its money, and I would be very wary of a company that would not release information on how it makes a profit. Take a look at this article about LSSI. It provides a lot more detail on how LSSI operates, and some of the questionable things it has done. I found the commentary on some of their marketing claims and their lack of transparency rather interesting. It also shows that issues with LSSI's methods are not new (the article is from 2004) and that library privatization itself is not a recent development.


LSSI's methods work to turn public libraries into businesses--which they aren't. They are publicly-funded centers of information. They really don't fit into any class except their own. Public libraries (and libraries in general) have a mission and purpose unique from any for-profit "business." Libraries know their communities like no outside third party would or could. I would strongly caution warn (with red flashing lights and big letters) libraries against contracting with a third party, especially LSSI. If necessity drives libraries to even remotely consider this option, please, PLEASE look over ALA's Checklist for Communities Considering Privatization of Public Libraries. Times are hard, but some sacrifices may be too dear, so consider carefully and exhaust all other resources first.

Britannica is going paperless

A recent article explains Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc's change to go completely digital. The printed set has been around for almost 250 years--a venerable collection of the knowledge of the ages, and I'm sure a very interesting record of how information changed over the course of its printed history (perhaps an enlightening study could be made of this?). Just seeing what someone 200 years ago thought was important to know would be fascinating. The social changes that have come about during its existence--and all being documented to some effect simply by what is included and how it's discussed--are staggering in number.

But enough reminiscing. The company's decision is certainly keeping up with the times. It joins many other well-known and well-respected subscription services that are available only online (many research databases come to mind). And I can understand why Britannica made the decision: the print version is not in high demand and could be seen as an "outdated" mode of information. The article mentioned above states that the vast majority of the company's sales are through its digital version. Good business dictates that the company "give the people what they want," which their sales show is, by and large, the online encyclopedia. And I do have to say that I like the online version and see it as a valuable resource that libraries should try to provide.

And yet such a decision bothers me somewhat. The Encyclopaedia Britannica is a great source of information, and with the death of the print version the "have-nots" in our society will be left without an alternative. Many people accept that online sources are the new reality and assume that everyone is "plugged in," when in actuality we are not in a time when the Internet is accessible to all. So how do we serve them? Libraries do their part to provide Internet services as much as they can to as many patrons as they can, but there are many the Internet still does not reach. Patrons from low-income families and libraries serving low-income populations may lose out here. Libraries that can't afford an annual subscription (but could afford to purchase the set every 3-4 years) will soon be left with outdated material they will need to find a substitution for--which may not be as well-written or as comprehensive.

In addition, I would like to humbly point out the inherent problem of relying too much on digital sources. A printed source has a permanence in its physicality that digital sources will never have; they can be too easily changed--or lost. (Think about this for a moment--who owns a digital copy of The Hunger Games on a Kindle or Nook? The person who purchased it? The company that provided it? The publisher? The author? Consider that Amazon can remove any book you purchase for a Kindle with no more compensation that a refund, regardless if you wanted to keep that book. This has happened to Kindle owners on a number of occasions and has helped to create a debate about digital ownership and access to controversial materials.) Aside from digital ownership issues, there another issue to consider. Computers are not perfect, and access can be affected by faulty devices trying to access the resource or the server used by the resource going down or experiencing functionality issues. What happens when everything is digital and the servers go down? Does that mean we won't be able to access anything?

As much as I like the possibilities that digital and online services provide (and I use them on a daily basis), I hope that print resources stick around for many more years.