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.