In response to Mayor Field’s commentary on Sunday:
First, why are Field and the other 12 mayors who agree with him endorsing and supporting a position on an opinion poll at all? We the people will not be voting to create a county-wide library, only to indicate for or against the establishment of such by the county council. This will be the people indicating their preference to their elected officials. In my opinion, the mayors should sit back and wait for the results, then advocate for the preference chosen by their constituency.
Second, I am glad Field and the others are library supporters and that they feel “there is no doubt about the importance of libraries and the services they provide in our society.” That’s easy to say but harder to back up for the mayors of communities that do not currently provide funding for library service to their citizens.
Third, Field stated that “the establishment of a new tax in the current economy is not wise.” Actually, any new tax would not be implemented for many months or even a year or longer. Meanwhile, the economy will continue to improve. Even if it were implemented now, bad economies are the times libraries and education are needed most. Field’s statement makes it sound like public libraries are a luxury that should only be funded in good times, but statistics from the national level down to our own libraries are showing that usage is up in “the current economy.” People need increased library service which should be a funding priority in hard times.
Fourth, Field uses the rationale that “if few now are willing to pay for [a $100 Logan Library card], what is the justification for a forced tax on all for this service?” I admit that relatively few have purchased the reduced rate Logan Library card. But his example does not necessarily prove his point. Say, for instance, there is a family in Cove (or any other outlying town in the county) who would like to have access to Logan Library’s large collection but cannot justify the drive to Logan each time they want an item that only Logan Library has. This family may not pay for a $100 card now. But for only about $82 annually (according to the opinion question language) or the equivalent of $6.84 per month, their whole family would be able to have cards and drive only to the much closer cities of Richmond or Lewiston (if those libraries were to participate) and get Logan’s item there in only a day or two. And they would have access to over 400,000 items in the combined collections of the libraries with one easy access point: their local library. My point is that there are people who are probably not buying Logan Library cards at the current time but would love to benefit from a library system for easier access and for less money than it costs for the $100 card.
Fifth, Field seems to imply that the cities’ general fund property tax incomes could not be lowered, even if they were no longer paying for libraries. Why not? Couldn’t it be decided that since the city’s citizens would no longer be paying for their library, a reduction in the tax rate would be justified? And couldn’t you just take the total dollar amount spent from your general fund on your community library in 2010, convert that into a percentage of the total annual amount of tax revenue that enters your general fund, and then lower your next year’s tax rate by that percentage? Later in the article, Field admits that “taxes are rarely lowered.” So make it a priority and make this time the exception, mayors!
Sixth, Field and the 12 mayors “feel that the operating costs of the countywide library have been underestimated.” Do Field and the mayors know more about the cost of county libraries than the consultant hired by the county, Mr. Pete Giacoma, former director of the Davis County Library System? I think Mr. Giacoma is in a much better position to talk about the estimated costs, having managed the budget and operations of a large county library, than the mayors of these cities, only some of which even have libraries.
Seventh, Field claims some local control will be diminished. This is true and is to be expected. This is something that each voter must consider. We would no longer be talking about your city’s library, but rather your community’s branch of the county library. But the library will still be in your city, still reflect your local community’s tastes and interests and would probably still be staffed by citizens of yours and other surrounding communities. Some perspective is due: we’re just talking about giving control to Cache County, not a foreign government agency.
Finally, a personal plea: I am a degreed and working librarian and in the past have lived within the boundaries of and been employed by a county-wide library (Salt Lake County Library Services). It is a great example of the possibilities of library cooperation and community education. Personally, I want to share Logan Library with the rest of the county. On November 2, we have a unique chance to voice our opinions on library service in our communities and the results will no doubt effect that service for decades to come. Let’s combine for the better good, be open and available and accessible to all, and vote in favor of a Cache County library system!
Respectfully,
Joseph N. Anderson
Logan
