“If we don’t advocate for ourselves, then who’s going to advocate for us?” asked Cindy Singer of the County of Los Angeles Public Library and moderator of the “Privatization of Libraries: What’s at Stake for Your Profession and Community” session. That question set the tone for the afternoon and advocate librarians did.
The room was packed. Presenters commented that this was the largest crowd they had ever given a talk to, and the room was filled with all types. There were librarians who wanted to learn more about the topic, librarians whose libraries were facing privatization, and librarians whose libraries had undergone the process. Ron Dubberly, president of Library Systems and Services (LSSI—the company that offers privatization services—was even in attendance.
The presentations began with speaker Heather Hill of the University of Western Ontario. Her research focuses on the library privatization process and she walked the crowd through the steps of privatization. Hill explained that outsourcing can increase accountability, efficiency, and citizen use of libraries, but also pointed out that there is only one company that offers these services and that the monopoly may prove difficult for libraries in the future.
Hill’s presentation had a wealth of information and research about the library privatization process, but perhaps the most interesting component was that identifying information, i.e., library names, newspapers, had been blacked out on her PowerPoint slides, leaving the crowd wondering about what was not being said.
The panel also included two non-librarian speakers, and perhaps the stars of the day. Lorie Christian and Lori Rivas are two residents of Santa Clarita in Los Angeles County and mothers who home-school their children and make heavy use of their city’s public library. The two women spoke about how the privatization process worked in their town. They gave a timeline of events and illustrated that—although the process usually includes a lengthy public discussion component—this did not happen in their city. Rivas told the room that city officials chose to vote on privatization and award a contract to the privatization company in the same city council meeting.
Ron Dubberly, LSSI president, stepped up to the microphone and asked for clarity on why everyone thought privatization was so terrible. If we could all agree that it was not about the quality of the librarians’ work, then what exactly was at the core of the issue? he asked. It was perhaps this question that set the room on fire.
Hands shot up in the air, people yelled out their comments if they felt they weren’t being heard, and the debate that ensued was heated. The position of the Santa Clarita mothers was clear. Rivas said that her issue was not with whether or not librarians who worked for a private corporation were qualified to do public library work, but that “those who serve the disenfranchised all bow down at the altar of profit when managed by private companies.”
Another commenter who works for an LGBTQ organization was particularly concerned about keeping public libraries public: “This is the last public space where anyone who walks through the door is equal.” His fear, along with many others in the room, was that privatized libraries would place profit before people and that libraries’ basic mission to serve anybody and everybody would be corrupted.
Richard Salmons, director of the Jackson–Madison County (Tenn.) Library, which is now run by the LSSI corporation, responded by saying, “My library underwent privatization and I can tell you that we don’t make people carry around ID cards that say gay or straight or homeless. Everybody is welcome in my library.”
The privatization debate is undoubtedly a heated one and librarians on both sides ultimately want to do what they believe is in the best interest of their patrons. The disagreement, however, is whether or not needs can best be met by a publicly or privately run organization, and that question was certainly not solved on this day.
