Outrage erupts as word spreads Merced County is mulling library privatization

 

 

Surprising emails started pouring into the Times on Monday afternoon, most with copies to members of the Board of Supervisors. 

One in particular stood out among the rest. The header read in all caps: SUPERVISORS PLAN TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC LIBRARY AND PRIVATIZE ITS SERVICES. 

It was written by Susan Walsh, a former longtime librarian and influential member of the League of Women Voters and Friends of the Library organizations. Walsh wrote that the privatization process “will most likely happen very soon … before the planning of next year’s county budget.” And she went on to assert that a majority of the Board of Supervisors were “voicing support for this destruction of our public library (voicing their plan in private, not in public to their constituents).” 

The email — a cry for action, if you will — inspired a wave of others by writers from Merced to Gustine, all protesting such alleged actions. 

When contacted by the Times, Walsh said she had talked to Supervisor Josh Pedrozo over the weekend, and that he had expressed concern about the county privatizing library services, and what that would mean to the community as a whole. Walsh also said she had knowledge, from another source, that the County Librarian, Amy Taylor, and a few other local government officials were aware of the privatization discussion. 

On Tuesday, Supervisor Pedrozo confirmed to the Times that county staff was “looking at” a proposal to provide library services through a contract with a private company with the goal of cost savings in the county budget. Pedrozo said he had seen the proposal. When asked about the possibility of library branch closures and reduction of library staff, the supervisor said he had not seen anything like that in the proposal. He said the consideration is ongoing, and that library privatization has not yet been brought forward as a “public policy discussion.” 

Walsh said she and other library supporters are outraged. She pointed out that “privatization” basically means the “closure” of public libraries. 

“Words matter,” she said. “Public libraries close under a vendor agreement and privatized libraries open offering privatized library services. The building may remain the same, but that does not mean that the public library still exists. The purpose of a vendor contract to privatize public libraries is just that — to end the cost and expenses and expectations for public libraries and offer privatized services instead.”

She added, “In order to save money, there is also the high probability that small branches will be closed, and hours and services cut across the county by the vendor because most business contracts explicitly ensure the vendor will not lose money.”

Having worked in the librarian field for decades, Walsh said she knows of only one private enterprise that works in California with a county government — Riverside County — to provide library services. That firm is called Library Systems and Services or LS&S. According to the company’s website: “As the nation’s only company focused on operating public libraries, LS&S is trusted by community leaders to provide long-term library vitality, growth and service excellence. Through extensive experience partnering with communities, LS&S powers strong libraries by balancing cost and service.”

In 1997, Riverside County became the first community in the nation to operate a public library system in partnership with a private company (LS&S). The company states: “The Riverside County Board of Supervisors needed a new way to operate the library system. Statewide budget cuts meant the status quo was unsustainable. At the same time, supervisors knew high-quality libraries were crucial for a growing county. They made the unconventional decision to solicit proposals for library operation. Library Systems & Services (LS&S) was the clear choice. Experienced LS&S library administrators worked with Riverside community leaders to plan a strong and sustainable future with community vitality and long-term goals in mind.”

Local library supporters are not buying the idea, according to multiple emails received by the Times. 

Katherine Grave wrote, “It’s an APPALLING idea for a growing county with both a junior college and a University of California campus to consider abolishing our free public libraries!”

According to Jolene Schadler, “These are tough times for cities and counties, but library privatization has hidden and uncontrolled costs and may not save money in the long run.”

Patricia Ryan added, “Reinstating the libraries after a closure — when the loss is understood — can be crippling.”

Donald Barclay, a retired academic librarian and one of the Founding Librarians at UC Merced, said: “Merced County’s per-capita spending on public libraries places it near the bottom among all California counties. Privatizing an already underfunded library is going to save little to no money. On top of that, privatizing means that Merced County tax dollars that would have been spent in Merced County will be sent outside of the county to be spent in other communities.”

The organization “Strong Towns Merced” asked: “Given the return on investment for its services, what makes the Library a larger cost burden than Supervisor salaries?”

Mike Biddison likened the privatization proposal to what he perceives is going on across the nation. “It is a sad time indeed, when we watch our nation’s cherished institutions being torn down indiscriminately by a President run amok, only to see that fever taking hold right here at home!”

Zachery Ramos, the owner and president of the private Gustine Traveling Library, said his work is done to complement the existing county library system, not to thwart it. “Closing libraries would be a disservice to the countless individuals who rely on them for education, resources, and a sense of belonging. I urge our community leaders to recognize the immense value of these institutions and work to preserve them for future generations. Our children deserve a future where books, learning, and opportunity remain within reach.”

Karl Libsch pointed out: “Didn’t we go through shutting it down last year? Is library bullying an annual event in Merced County?” (In 2023, library supporters rallied at a board meeting to spare the library from budget cuts at a time when increasing public safety funding was a hot topic. ) 

Actually, library closures and cost-cutting measures to the system are part of the history of the Merced County Library. 

In 1993, in an unprecedented move, the Board of Supervisors voted to shut down its entire public library system due to a financial crunch. The closures were prolonged and caused widespread public disapproval. More recently in 2014, supervisors facing another financial crisis voted to shut down the George, Cressey, South Dos Palos and Stevinson libraries, replacing them with the county Bookmobile.

According to Walsh’s memory, “When a previous Board of Supervisors closed the public library entirely, and laid all staff off to save money, for weeks members of the Board told the community they would not close the library — right up to the meeting when they closed the library.”

Walsh said she expects library supporters to be on hand for public comment at the upcoming Board of Supervisors meeting scheduled for March 25. 

On behalf of the League of Women Voters of Merced County, Walsh sent the following statement to the Times: “Reflecting on our commitment to fair, open, transparent, and democratic local government as well as our commitment to public libraries, the League has many concerns about the proposal to privatize the Merced County Public Library system. Here are two:

“Since the purported goal of the privatization of the Merced County Library is saving money, the LWV Merced County questions how money can be saved from such a thinly staffed, poorly supported system (in the bottom 10 percent of California county public library per capita funding)? How will efficiencies be made without drastic cuts to staff, services, materials, and perhaps even branches? What rubric is being used to measure such cuts against the damage that might be done to branch library holdings, databases, and services? What attention has been given to the loss of thousands of dollars that are raised in communities to support a public library system that will no longer be given to a privatized one?

“The LWV Merced County also questions how the planning of a proposal to privatize a fundamental county service serving thousands of county residents has come this far without once being mentioned in a Board of Supervisors meeting either on the agenda or in Board comments or without being agendized and discussed before the Merced County Library Commission? The fundamental question is how exactly did this situation develop given the specific restrictions of the Ralph M. Brown California open meetings law?”