WebJunction - Where librarians and library staff connect, create, and learn

What Do You Mean, Politics?

The word “politics” conjures up a host of conflicting images—everything from selfless public servants working for the good of their communities to backslapping good old boys in cigar smoke-filled back rooms. Even Webster's has a hard time detailing every meaning of the word; almost an entire column of a page is dedicated to the nuances of the definition. There are several definitions applicable to this context: 1) “the art and science concerned with guiding or influencing government policy;” 2) “competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership;” 3) “activities concerned with achieving control, advancement, or some other goal;” and 4) “the relations between leaders and non-leaders in any social grouping” (Gove, 1981, p. 1755). In this instance, the meaning of politics is the ability to understand and work effectively within the dynamics at play in a particular group convened for the stated purpose of overseeing the operation of a public library. It truly is an art and a science, and it is critically important to libraries, librarians, and library trustees. Because, like it or not, “all libraries, publicly-supported ones more obviously than others, are political agencies. That is not bad or good. It is just a fact” (Berry, 1992, p. 6).

Who Are These People?

Just who are these people who determine the direction of libraries? The American Library Trustee Association (ALTA) and the American Library Association (ALA) estimate there are more than 60,000 public library trustees in the United States (Roman & Swader, 1997, p. 9). To learn more about them, ALTA and ALA conducted a survey in the summer of 1997 on a random sample of 1,200 trustees. The results showed trustees to be 97% white and 65% female. The majority were over 50 years of age, with only 41% working outside the home and 14% working part time. 74% of the trustees were appointed to the library board, and 25% were elected. It is interesting to note that a comparison was made with a 1935 trustee survey, and there was very little change in the composition of library boards in the 62 years between the surveys (Lynch, 1998, p. 101-3). A survey of other nonprofit boards by the National Center for Nonprofit Boards and Stanford University School of Business conducted in 1999 revealed similar demographic profiles (Enright, 2000).

These samples reveal that library and other nonprofit board memberships do not reflect the diversity of the United States population as a whole. According to the United States 2000 Census, the population is 75.1% white, 50.9% female, and 21.1% over the age of 54 (U. S. Bureau of the Census, 2002, p. 1).

Why Are They Here?

“Why then would a person seek or accept a job in the public domain that sometimes draws criticism, pays nothing, is time consuming, requires great diplomacy, and deals with a never-ending stream of complex problems, the solutions to which are often hard-won compromises?” (Biggs & Kramer, 1994, p. 35). There are in fact many reasons people choose library board service. Some reasons are more overt than others.

Many trustees choose to serve on library boards because they believe strongly in the importance of libraries to their community (Manley, 1998, p. 108). Others feel the need to represent the interests of the community to the library director and to funding agencies. Some become trustees to try to preserve what they see as traditional library service in light of the overwhelming influence of technology (Johnson, 1998, p. 172). In addition, many see a responsibility to oversee the fair and ethical expenditure of public tax dollars (Snyder, 1999, p. 202).

Not every trustee has purely altruistic motives for library board service. Many are there for social prestige (Biggs & Kramer, 1994, p. 33). Increasing visibility through relatively “safe” venues like the library board is seen by many as a way to pad their civic service résumé on their way to higher office (Manley, 1998, p. 108). This is especially true when boards are elected instead of appointed (Johnson, 2001, p. 9). Some have personal interests in controlling library operations, like keeping taxes low or influencing collection decisions (Biggs & Kramer, p. 34). Others see board service as a way to have control over personnel decisions—hiring someone they like or firing someone they do not like (Manley, p. 108).

Whatever their reasons for service, according to the ALA/ALTA survey, 64% of those who do serve are legally responsible for their libraries, and 39% serve in an advisory capacity (Lynch, 1998, p 101). Their influence is real. Trustees can speak with legislators and other authorities on library legislation and funding without appearing self-serving (Roman & Swader, 1997, p. 9). They should view their libraries as important assets to their communities and have a commitment to promote this view (Brown & Walker, 2001, p. 4). Both librarians and trustees must realize that “when it comes to political clout, one trustee is more powerful than a thousand directors” (Manley, 1998, p. 108). Elected officials see trustees as voters, but they may view librarians as just public administrators with a personal agenda of enlarging their own sphere of influence (Miller, 2001, p. 56).

Strange Bedfellows

Boards of public library trustees are comprised of elected officials, professionals, community and civic leaders, and interested community members. All these people have turf and ego issues and most are accustomed to being the person in charge in their respective arenas. This is fertile ground for power games and head butting. It is also a group charged with having a single employee, the library director, whom they hire, discipline, set compensation for, and, if necessary, fire (Board Member Online, 2001). The members of this group are usually recruited, trained, and informed by their sole employee (Lewandowski, 1998, p. 72).

The boundary between the responsibilities of trustees and library directors is “fuzzy, if it really exists at all” (Berry, 1992, p. 6). A 1994 Pennsylvania Library Trustee and Director Survey sought to identify whether the authority for 39 identified activities was perceived as vested with the board, the library director, or was shared. Of all the activities, there was unanimous agreement for only two, that hiring and evaluating a director and approving policies are the trustees’ responsibilities. Most other activities were ranked by both groups as more their own responsibility. Trustees and library directors both felt they were responsible for determining goals and objectives for the library, purchasing equipment, hiring and evaluating staff, implementing policies, and creating procedures. No one thought it was their responsibility to evaluate the board (Belanger, 1995, p. 39). The dichotomy of perception is more pronounced for directors and trustees of small libraries. This is important because 80% of all public libraries are in population centers of 25,000 or less (Vavrek, 1995, p. 42).

With the complexity of issues, unique sets of circumstances, and differing perceptions of roles, it is no wonder public library boards can be dysfunctional. In fact, it is a wonder that they are able to function at all.

How Does This Work?

Given all the competing agendas and role confusion, how should the trustee/librarian/community relationship work? Ideally, the board of trustees is selected to serve according to procedures detailed in the by-laws of the library. The election of officers, length of terms, and responsibilities should also be covered in the by-laws. The governance of programs and services of the public library is entrusted in the board on behalf of the public and local government. The trustee represents the library to the community and the community to the library. They have a legal responsibility to their communities to ensure that tax dollars are spent both wisely and legally (Saucerman & Jurewicz, 1998, p. 21). The board represents citizen control of the library (Christenson, 1995, p. 63). But no individual trustee has the right to act on behalf of the board unless officially authorized to do so (Wenner, n.d.). The board should be responsible for recruiting and training new trustees (McNamara, n.d.). The library director is hired by the board and is responsible for the administration and technical aspects of the work of the library (Christenson, p. 63).

All components of the work of public libraries begin with a set of policies. These must change as circumstances warrant. Policies are often suggested and/or drafted by the library director, but the board may accept, edit, or reject them. Ultimately, the board must adopt and approve all policies (Young, 1998, p. 5). The role of policymaking may be the largest single part of a library trustee’s job (Christenson, 1995, p. 66). The library director is responsible for making the day-to-day decisions on applying board policies (Biggs & Kramer, 1994, p. 33). In the event of a public challenge to library policies, the library director and the trustees must work together to resolve problems. The library director should be the first contact for library users with policy complaints (Brown & Kimball, 2001, p. 5).

While the board is responsible for hiring the library director, the director is responsible for hiring all other library staff (Wenner, n.d.). The board is responsible for establishing overall personnel policies, benefits, salary structures, and grievance procedures, but the library director is responsible for administering them (Christenson, 1995, p. 67).

The same model holds true for planning, finance, and every other aspect of library management. The board provides the framework and the director handles the details. “When a library board does its job well, the librarian can be secure in the knowledge that instead of merely protecting the library from politics, the board is practicing the kind of politics that will truly ‘protect’ the library: protect it from poor fiscal support, citizen apathy, and irrelevance to the community it serves” (Berry, 1992, p. 6). In a situation like this, everyone wins.

How Does This Fail?

Boards fail due to political ineptitude. Trouble happens when trustees and librarians try to fill each other’s roles (Belanger, 1995, p. 38). Trustees frequently seek to be too controlling, partly because they are legally responsible for building ownership, governance, budgeting, and policies (Christenson, 1995, p. 63). “The excessive desire to control, to manage every detail without sufficient accountability to the institution’s purposes, the expertise of the librarian, or the needs of users is a political failure” (Berry, 1992, p. 6). Sometimes the failure is not just on the side of the trustees. Librarians seeking director positions often fail to get a contract that details each party’s responsibilities (White, 1999, p. 59). Librarians may have philosophical differences with trustees when it comes to challenges from the community on certain issues, and they may take a professional stand on intellectual freedom issues that can cause them to lose credibility with trustees and library users. This places them in the position of being ostracized professionally or offending local constituents. Either way it causes a breach of trust (Berry, 2000, p. 6). Both librarians and trustees may fail to keep themselves well-informed enough to deal adequately with the complexities of modern libraries and the demands of their users (Lewandowski, 1998, p. 174). The personal agendas or improper relationships may get in the way of the real work by either party. Even too much friendship between trustees and the library director may interfere with good business practices (Snyder, 1999, p. 204). Libraries directed by skilled librarians with “low-profile boards composed of rubber stamp trustees” may work fine as long as nothing rocks the boat, but it is risky in the long run (Biggs & Kramer, 1994, p. 34).

Whatever the causes of board failures, those who lose are the libraries and the communities they serve. “Every time a dispute between librarian and board becomes a public event, the public trust in that library and other libraries is diminished” (Berry, 2000, p. 6).

Why It Is Important?

The world in which public libraries operate is becoming more complex than ever. Questions are rising that have no precedent. Without stable leadership in “today’s information age the library could become a half-filled promise relative to the information needs of a community” (Dittrich, 1998, p. 170). Librarians and trustees have important responsibilities to ensure that their patron communities retain the right and ability to read, view, hear, and learn all sides of issues that affect them (Lewandowski, 1998, p. 174). Many library directors are not comfortable with the political aspects of their jobs and too often defer to others, missing opportunities to exercise their own expertise (Corbus, 1999, p. 27). This is a mistake. Librarians must learn to work with trustees in politically astute ways to make sure they are aware of all the issues involved in their decisions and develop a consensus of vision (Belanger, 1995, p. 41). “Other agencies may define what is desirable, but it is the local library board that determines what is possible” (Sager, 1998, p. 170).

The reality of the lack of political savvy, of both librarians and boards, is reflected in the lack of inclusion in major discussions of topics that are of great importance to our rural communities. For example, at a recent major conference sponsored by the Appalachian Regional Commission, “Education and the Community: Fostering Mutual Support,” the only mention of libraries was a single line regarding summer reading programs in a presentation by Carol Rasco of Reading is Fundamental (Baldwin, 2003, p. 6).

Public libraries are funded in a variety of ways. In Georgia , for example, funding comes from the state, federal grants, county commissions, boards of education, and cities. All of these are primarily political agencies who also appoint trustees. A large percentage of the time the librarian ends up preparing and defending the budget to the funding agency instead of the trustees, who may be uncomfortable arguing dollars with the agency who appointed them. Local funding agencies often choose trustees they know will not ask for more funding for the library because of political loyalty to that agency. The problem is greater for smaller jurisdictions. “Small towns have a whole different set of rules than larger cities. Board members are usually highly visible people of the community and are on several different boards/committees” (Dannatt, 2001, p. 6). These trustees may have to choose which board/committee commands their first loyalty when lobbying elected officials for funding. They are legally responsible for funding the library, but have a built-in conflict of interest. Without adequate local funding, libraries lose their ability to meet the needs of their communities and lose relevance at the state and national level, further marginalizing them. Librarians and trustees must be willing to accept this fact if they want to maintain adequate local funding.

How To Improve It

“Public libraries are too important and too fragile to be left in the hands of well-intentioned wimps” (Manley, 1998, p. 108). Every public library trustee and director needs to become a better politician, within the library as well as within the community. Here are some suggestions for improving library director and trustee effectiveness.

Start from a position of mutual trust and respect.
Establish a contract between trustees and the library director that details responsibilities for both parties.
Keep lines of communication open so participants understand and appreciate what the other brings to the process. Active participation between and among library directors, trustees, elected officials, and community members is essential.
Rotate trustee memberships often. Have established term limits and procedures for ending terms of non-participants.
Recruit trustees that will reflect the diversity within the community.
Make sure a variety of skills are represented on the board.
Trustees should mentor each other and not rely solely on the library director for their training and continuing education.
Take advantage of continuing education opportunities that are available for trustees, library directors, and public officials.
Encourage participation in trustee organizations at the state and national levels to provide perspective.
Be aware of personal agendas that may interfere with effectiveness.
Keep in mind that even if both trustees and library directors do their jobs competently, there will be friction at times.

Conclusion

Few rules actually exist for the running of library boards, except for Internal Revenue Service rules and Sunshine Laws. Tradition shapes them more than law. Effective interaction between library board members, elected officials who control the purse strings, librarians, library staff, and community members is essential to quality library services. Politics is involved on many levels within and among these groups. Like it or not, politics is an inescapable part of managing public libraries. Libraries will be successful only to the extent that those who govern them are effective politicians. According to Berry , “politics itself may be the fundamental skill of our time" (1992, p. 6). Librarians and trustees must be willing to accept this fact and develop and use their political acumen. If they fail to do so, instead of being wallflowers at the public funding party, they will find themselves not invited at all.

References

Baldwin, F. D. (2003). Schools and the community: Fostering mutual support. Appalachia, 36(1), 2–6.

Belanger, D. (1995). Board games: Examining the trustee/director conflict. Library Journal, 120(9), 38–41.

Berry III, J. N. (1992). Trustees: The library's politicians. Library Journal, 117(17), 6.

Berry III, J. N. (2000). The trouble is trust. Library Journal, 125(15), 6.

Biggs, M. & Kramer, G. (1994, May). We have been there, too: Library board essentials for effectiveness. Wilson Library Bulletin, 68, 32–35.

Board Member Online. (2001). Board Member SOS, 10(4). Accessed 21 October 2003from http://www.ncnb.org/boardmember/april01004.html.

Brown, C. & Walker, C. (2001). Does cooperation really work? Nebraska Library Association Quarterly, 32(1), 4–5.

Christenson, J. (1995). Role of the public library trustee. Library Trends, 44, 63–76.

Corbus, L. (1999). Taking charge of micromanagers. American Libraries, 30(2), 26–29.

Dannatt, N. (2001). Directors and boards. Nebraska Library Association Quarterly, 32(1), 6.

Dittrich, C. (1998). The library trustee moves the community. Public Libraries, 37, 170–171.

Enright, K. (2000). Where do I fit in? Nonprofit Governance Index 2000 provides new benchmarking data for nonprofits. Board Member Online, 9(4). Accessed 21 June 2001from http://www.ncnb.org/boardmember/archives/04-00/newres04.htm.

Gove, P. B. (Ed.). (1981). Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged. Springfield, MA : Mirriam-Webster, 1755.

Johnson, C. A. (2001). Election of library trustees: Good, bad, coming soon? Alki, 17(2), 8–10.

Johnson, V. G. (1998). Key issues and trends facing trustees today. Public Libraries, 37, 172.

Lewandowski, F. (1998). Trustees mentoring trustees. Public Libraries, 37, 172–174.

Lynch, M. J. (1998). Who are these people? American Libraries, 29(7), 101–103.

Manley, W. (1998). The most important people in the library profession. American Libraries, 29(2), 108.

McNamara, C. (n.d.). Board and Staff Responsibilities. St. Paul, MI : Management Assistance Program for Nonprofits. Accessed 10 December 2003from http://www.mapnp.org/library/boards/brdvsstf.ht m.

Miller, E. G. (2001). Advocacy ABCs for trustees. American Libraries, 32(8), 56–59.

Roman, S. & Swader, L. R. (1997). The Association's Association: ALTA, the voice of America 's trustees. American Libraries, 28(5), 9.

Sager, D. J. (1998). Public library trusteeship in the 21^st Century. Public Libraries, 37, 171–174.

Saucerman, S. & Jurewicz, L. (1998). Walking the administrative tightrope; or, it’s not a job; it’s an adventure. Indiana Libraries, 17(1), 21–22.

Snyder, H. W. (1999). Not being such good friends with your board of directors: A strategy for better financial control. Library Administration and Management, 13, 202–204.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2002). 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Profiles of General Demographic Characteristics. Accessed 27 October 2003from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/dpl/2kh00.pdf.

Vavrek, B. F. (1995, January). Rural libraries and community development. Wilson Library Bulletin, 69, 42–44.

Wenner, G. C. (n.d.). Guidelines on board and staff relations and responsibilities. American Philanthropy Review. Accessed 21 June 2001from http://CharityChannel.com/GuestShare/Gene_Wenner/.

White, H. S. (1999). Authority, responsibility, and delegation in public libraries. Library Journal, 124(15), 59–60.

Young, V. C. (1998). Trustee talk. Missouri Library World, 3(1), 5–6.

Other Works Consulted

Berry III, J. N. (2002). The ideal trustee is gone. Library Journal, 127(1), 8.

Hilyard, N. B. (2003). Our trusty trustees. Public Libraries, 42, 220–223.

Miller, E. G. (2001). Getting the most from your boards and advisory councils. Library Administration & Management, 15, 204–212.

O'Connor, J. (2000). Intentional simplicity. Board Member Online, 9(10). Accessed 21 June 2001from http://www.ncnb.org/boardmember/archives/1112-00/nd004.html.

Pinder, J. A. (2003). Yesterday I started a new job. Public Libraries, 42, 7.

Schuster, B. (1999). Keys to recruiting new board members. Board Member Online, 8(7). Accessed 21 June 2001from http://www.ncnb.org/boardmember/archives/8-99/checklist.htm.

Schuyler, C. G. (2000). Education for library boards: A library manager’s view. Alki 16(3), 15–16.