Massachusetts Board of Library Commission (MBLC)
State Aid Program Meeting #1
September 8, 2006, 10:00 am-4:00 pm
By Marsha M. Morris & Associates, International
The first Massachusetts Board of Library Commission State Aid Committee meeting was held on
Friday, September 8, 2006, from 10am-4pm. This was the first of a series of meetings to take
place between September 2006 and April 2007. The purpose of the committee review process is
to draft a set of policy recommendations for the state aid to public libraries program for the
Commissioners’s consideration and implementation.
The complete agenda is presented below, and the list of participants is attached.
Purpose: “The committee will assess the role of a state aid program in improving library services
through review of the current state aid program and review of approaches in other states, and will
develop a next generation program for recommendation to the Board of Library Commissioners.”
Desired Outcomes:
1. An agreement on guidelines for how the Committee will operate
2. An understanding of the basic components of the State Aid Program so that the
Committee members can begin their work
3. Knowledge of the original vision and mission statement of the State Aid Program so that
Committee members are aware of the underlying principles of the Program
4. A list of the strengths and weaknesses of the State Aid Program
5. A list of ideals for a state aid program
6. An agreement on the Committee’s next steps
AGENDA
Activity
Welcome Breakfast
Committee Welcome
Process
Open
Start ups: Introductions, Desired
Outcomes, Agenda and Ice
Breaker
Group Guidelines and Meeting
Dates for the Spring
Present and Clarify Questions
and Answers
Agree
Name the library, how many
employee, and your favorite
book
Present and Clarify
Changes and Agree
Break
Open
Who
Jim/Marsha
Time
9:30am
30 min.
Rob/Em Claire
10:00am
15 min.
Rob/Marsha
10:15am
40 min.
Marsha
10:55am
15 min.
11:10am
10 min.
1
Vision, Mission, History, and
Program Components
Strengths and Weaknesses of
the Program (Small Groups)
Present and Clarify
Questions and Answers
Brainstorm and List
Clarify
Lunch
Open
Continue Strengths and
Weaknesses of the Program
(Large Group)
Present and Clarify
Questions and Answers
Review
Add
Identify Areas of Agreement
Open
Group/Marsha
Brainstorm and List
Clarify
Questions and Answers
Review
Add
Review
Add and Agree
Plus/Delta
Group
Activity/Marsha
Break
Ideals for a state aid program
(Pairs with post its and Large
Group)
Next Steps
Meeting Evaluation
Dianne/Marsha
Small Group
Activity/Marsha
MBLC
Team/Marsha
Marsha
11:20am
20 min.
11:40am
50 min.
12:30pm
45 min
1:15pm
75 min.
2:30pm
10 min.
2:40pm
60 min.
3:45pm
10 min.
3:55pm
5 min.
The meeting opened with Em Clair Knowles, Chair of the Committee and Robert Maier, Director
of the Commission thanking Committee Members for their participation in the state aid review
process. Ms. Marsha Morris, the retreat facilitator, then welcomed the participants and began the
meeting with introductions. Ms. Morris presented the meeting’s purpose, agenda and desired
outcomes.
Next, the participants reviewed the meeting package including the draft team charter and list of
participants, etc. Participants made the following comments and agreements regarding the
agenda, guidelines, team charter and future meeting dates.
Guidelines






One person speak at a time
Please Respect Others’ opinions/ Thoughts
Cell Phones OFF or on VIBRATE
If you need to take care of yourself (make a phone call, use the bathroom, etc.), Please
feel free to leave the room
Feel Free to ask questions about themes/issues you are unsure of
LET’S HAVE FUN!!
2




Guidelines Comments/Additions
Regularly post note on website. Open communication/ more dialogue
Share information from these meetings with colleagues and communities
May have open public meetings to present results of this process
Consensus decision-making process important/must have commitment to this process.
Some caution about any potential for reliance on majority vote process
Reactions/Comments to Review of Charter



Goals: Tested for understanding
Operating Agreement: Staying focused on big picture/ facilitator may remind participants
to keep to work at hand
Scope: No hidden agendas, no discussion of specific library related issues
Following the review and discussion of the guidelines and charter Dianne Carty and Jim
Lonergan referred Committee members to materials inside the packet outlining the vision,
history and mission of the State Aid Program. Important comments included:





Reminder to group of definition and intent of State Aid Program
A question was raised about collaboration intended by the program but not noted in the
materials
Chronology of important legislative decisions
Reminder of requirements to be eligible for state aid
There was some clarification of MA general laws
The group followed this clarifying session with small group work centered on the strengths and
weaknesses of the State Aid Program. Groups of 3-4 worked for just under an hour to
brainstorm lists of positives and negatives regarding the State Aid Program. Groups had time to
ask one another questions about use of State Aid funds in their own communities and challenges
in applying and administering the program.
Following lunch the day-long meeting continued with a discussion of the strengths and
weaknesses outlined by each of the nine groups. One committee member was chosen to report
out the brainstorming list. Each of the group discussions is reflected below.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the State Aid Program
Group 1: Vanessa Verkade from Kingston; Joanne Lamothe from Weymouth; Em Claire
Knowles, Chair of MBLC and John Ramsay from Western Massachusetts Regional Library
System
Strengths:
 Money
 Earmarked for general library use
 Maintenance of effort of funding (MAR)
3
 Minimum Standards
 Reciprocity Requirement—unless not certified
Weaknesses:
 Complications (cannot be done electronically, explaining to city officials, board of
directors, etc.
 Inflexible and Outmoded
 Requirements may not be tied into library’s or municipal plans
 Silent on staff levels
Group 2: Ellie Chesebrough from Sturbridge; Emily Bader from Springfield and
Strengths:
 Open to information
 Standards are important
 Emphasizes local support
 Circulation off set factor
 Legislators understand giving to their communities with direct aid
 Flexibility of spending MEG/LIG without appropriation is great
Weaknesses:
 Circulation Offset
 MEG not understood equally
 Reporting requirements aren’t consistent
Group 3: John Arnold, MLBC Commissioner; Bonnie Burnham from Northampton; Frank
Murphy from Arlington
Strengths:
 Reciprocity
 Political Clout
 Explicit minimum standards
 Emphasize material/content
 MEG helps economic divide
 Recognizes professional librarianship
 Keeps libraries “free”
 Some enforcement capacities=good
 Mechanism to qualify cities/towns for other library programs
Weaknesses:
 Funding amount relatively insignificant
 Overly complicated
 Inflexible
 Doesn’t adequately cover non-resident use
 Very rigid “switch” with dramatic consequences
 Gotten to the point where every tweak hurts as much as it helps
4
Group 4: Elaine Winquist from Duxbury; Dianne Carty, Head of State Aid Program and
Penny Johnson from Worcester
Strengths:
 Standards are important and should remain
 Reciprocity
 MAR is essential
Weaknesses:
 Adjustments made to standards due to economic downturns/politics
 Not enough funding for present program
 Reciprocity requirement not enforceable
 State aid program requirement difficult to explain
Group 5: Joe Mule from Lancaster; James Matarazzo from Winthrop, and Andre Mayer from
Cambridge
Strengths:
 Reciprocity
 Reasonable Standards
 Good value for the dollar
Weaknesses:
 Recognition of cooperative element is becoming bigger
 Not tied to inflation index
 Technology and personal incentive
Group 6: Suzanne Teuteberg from Brewster; Denis Lesieur from Lenox and Jim Lonergan,
State Aid Specialist
Strengths:
 Money-financial incentive Earmarked for general library use
Weaknesses:
 Material expense—can’t count certain items e.g. computers, utilities
 Comp period—cape summer homes
 Program inflexible (standards)—adaptability of standards-annual basis
 We discuss minimum standards—how about beyond minimum standards in not
reward/flex
 Raise educational standards
 Holds
 Measure of effectiveness of program
 Funds to municipality not library
Group 7: Janice Coduri from Wellesley; Nancy Rea from Haverhill and Pat Lambert from
Dedham
Strengths:
 MAR
 Material Requirement
5



Hours
Certification
Reciprocity
Weaknesses:
 Complex
 Hard to explain to town, patrons and staff
 Requires math aptitude
 Parameter change year to year
 Forms not Electronic
Group 8: BWS Johnson from Hinsdale; Bernie Margolis from Boston; Krista McLeod from
Methuen, Susan McAlister from Minuteman Library Network
Strengths:
 Added Financial Resources
 MAR is helpful
 No restrictions on use of funding
 Tool for delivery of local aid to libraries
 Give the legislature an opportunity to say how important libraries are
Weaknesses:
 Amount received not as significant as in the past
 MAR-not enough funding to be a carrot at the local level
 Percent toward materials
 Little incentive for cooperation and resource sharing instead supports library
“independence”
 Doesn’t promote equality or efficiency
 Definition of “disparities” does not give direction to how we provide quality service
Group 9: Diane Giarrusso from Boxford, Vivian Spiro, Chair of Board of Directors of the
Associates of Boston Public Library and Rob Maier, Director of MLBC
Strengths:
 Necessity of being certified so residents have access to other libraries and ILL
 Potential loss of certification works locally to sustain minimum funding
 Library has control of how State Aid funds are spent (“without further appropriation”)
 Makes clear that each community must support its library
Weaknesses:
 Doesn’t’ take cost of technology into account
 Not enough money in the program
 Standards for hours and materials expenditure don’t increase beyond 25,000 population
and doesn’t benefit larger libraries
 Non-resident circulation offset is under-funded
6
State Aid Program Discussion (continued)
The Facilitator worked with group to cluster thoughts and ideas. Ideas that emerged as central to
everyone are listed below. A number of items were also put on the “Parking Lot” sheet to allow
for future discussion.
Reoccurring Themes--Strengths:
 Reciprocity
 By having rules in place communities are protected from having budgets cut
 MAR
 MEG
 Program funds 97% of municipalities and this serves almost 99% of the population
 State aid program gives libraries political clout in their communities “powerful political
tool”
Reoccurring Themes--Weaknesses
 Not enough funding
 Minimum Standards are good but standards are outdated
 Size of municipality effects the effectiveness of the program
-other things that effect effectiveness size of municipality, type of government,
whether library is private or not, demographic, tax base
 Formula isn’t flexible
 Current system measures what we have, what we pay for-not what services are provided
and how we help people
 Requirements difficult to explain
 Technological infrastructure (work station)
 No incentive for cooperation/ collaboration
 No incentives to raise professional standards of staff
Closing Thoughts




Group needs discussion of mission
Facilitator and Commissioners will plan to include need for mission and look at meeting
schedule
Reminder to group to calendar agreed upon meeting dates (October 11, 2006; October 31,
2006; March 22, 2007; April 26, 2007
Facilitators Contact Information: Marsha Morris at mmorris@mmi-consult.com.
Parking Lot


Rules municipalities
State aid review process should be tied to long range planning
7




Waivers and how they are used
Staff Development
The Formula doesn’t look at human capital (fund bldg. and books only)
Mission as it stands is operational vs. strategic
Next Steps






Email buck Report and relevant statues
Homework assignment-Think of five ideas for the purpose of the program.
Marsha Morris will meet with MLBC staff to review meeting notes and plan October 11
meeting
Meeting Notes will be forwarded to the Committee
Participants review notes and be in touch with questions/suggestions
Share committee information with colleagues and communities
Meeting Evaluation
PLUS
*Excellent facilitation
*Great participation/respectfulness
*Everyone cares
*Encouraging caring of information with
community
*Breaks are good
*Having website available to community
*Flexibility of board to take detour
*Diversity of the group
*Good note taking
Alignment in group that changes are needed
DELTA
*No auditorium seating/ big table
*Natural light
*Chocolates/sweets
*Frustrating that breaks didn’t resume on time
8
ATTACHMENT #1
MLBC
State Aid Program Committee Meeting Notes
September 8, 2006
List of Participants
Public Library Directors (15)
1. Emily Bader
2. Ellie Chesebrough
3. Janice Coduri
4. Diane Giarrusso
5. Penny Johnson
6. BWS Johnson
7. Patricia Lambert
8. Joanne Lamothe
9. Denis Lesieur
10. Bernie Margolis
11. Krista McLeod
12. Joseph Mule
13. Nancy Rea
14. Suzanne Teuteberg
15. Elaine Winquist
Public Library Trustees (5)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Bonnie Burnham
Andre Mayer
Frank Murphy
James Matarazzo
Vanessa Verkade
Regional and Network Administrators (2)
1. Susan McAlister
2. John Ramsay
Public Library Friends and Advocates (1)
1. Vivian Spiro
9
MBLC Commissioners (3)
1. Em Claire Knowles
2. John Arnold
3. Ed Bertorelli
MBLC Staff (3)
1. Robert Maier
2. Dianne Carty
3. James Lonergan
10