The future of Sheffield's Libraries - Megathread

[forumer]

And having run Mobile & Special Services for 11 years I can tell you exactly who that will hit :

 

1. People who can't access a building-based service : the elderly, the disabled and those who don't have a car

2. People living is isolated rural communties

3. People in residential care and sheltered housing

4. People who live further than a mile from a branch library.

5. Children in rural schools

 

To save what? There are 4 mobile libraries - 3 x 36 footers and a 30 foot long vehicle designed for small communities and rural routes. They have no resale value and their repair and maintenance budget doesn't amount to the upkeep of one branch library for a year.

 

The mobiles each cover the whole of Sheffield over a week and provide a flexible, cost-effective service to some of the most vulnerable people.

 

I hope the Lib Dems are proud of themselves.

 

Given that not one single library will close and a mobile library service, albeit reduced, will continue they probably are. Especially when you look at the mass library closures labour councillors have agreed in places like Manchester and Leeds.

[algy]

Think we all Know the Labour government got us into a big mess .

But do we really have to make so many Cuts to Libraries !!

 

Now just a idea here Would you mind Paying something like 20p for every book you lend out ? i dont mean for OAPs tho

 

But it's a fundamental principle in law that for books, public libraries are a free service . I know 20p doesn't sound much, but it would be the thin end of the wedge. Once the principle is accepted, up would go the charges.

I'm old enough to remember when prescriptions were free.

 

 

Then the government introduced a charge of 1 shilling (5p).

That was OK, a nominal amount really.

What is it now? £7.20 per item. And it will go on rising.

[Chris_Sleeps]

Now just a idea here Would you mind Paying something like 20p for every book you lend out ?

The library lends, we borrow.

 

I wouldn't mind paying 20p to borrow a book, aslong as the money was taken out of my tax and not my own wallet.

[Pat145]

"Everyone knows there are inefficiencies" etc. Often said, usually by people who don't work for the Council, but can you name a few of these inefficiencies?

While you're at it, could you quote the comparative figures for the cuts, an actual CEO salary, and a couple of consultants?

 

Over long management chains are an obvious inefficiency. There is a five level management chain above a library worker.

Then there are people who spend all their time in meetings or emailing about meetings. There are back office workers who don't actually do anything or produce anything.

 

Things like, for example, stationery, have to be bought from a preferred supplier, who charges an arm and a leg for stuff that could be bought for a fraction of the price at any stationery store in town, e.g. Staples.

 

John Mothersole reportedly earns 184K. From Sheffield council's figures they currently employ 122 people earning more than 50K (reduced from 136 in 2009). Information on consultancy fees paid, is available on the council website, but for January this year they paid 14k to one, 95k and 18K to another, 5.6K to another, 77K to another, 535 to another, 2k to another, 596 to another... the list goes on....

 

In comparison, slashing the mobile library service, as proposed, will merely save about 200k.

 

If effective savings are made elsewhere, there should be no need to cut front line services.

[algy]

Then there are people who spend all their time in meetings or emailing about meetings. There are back office workers who don't actually do anything or produce anything.

 

Things like, for example, stationery, have to be bought from a preferred supplier, who charges an arm and a leg for stuff that could be bought for a fraction of the price at any stationery store in town, e.g. Staples.

 

John Mothersole reportedly earns 184K. From Sheffield council's figures they currently employ 122 people earning more than 50K (reduced from 136 in 2009). Information on consultancy fees paid, is available on the council website, but for January this year they paid 14k to one, 95k and 18K to another, 5.6K to another, 77K to another, 535 to another, 2k to another, 596 to another... the list goes on....

 

In comparison, slashing the mobile library service, as proposed, will merely save about 200k.

 

If effective savings are made elsewhere, there should be no need to cut front line services.

 

Things like, for example, stationery, have to be bought from a preferred supplier, who charges an arm and a leg for stuff that could be bought for a fraction of the price at any stationery store in town, e.g. Staples.

 

Preferred supplier contracts are usually negotiated to get the best price. Can you give us some examples?

 

 

So get rid of the Chief exec and you still don't save the mobile service.

 

Then there are people who spend all their time in meetings or emailing about meetings. There are back office workers who don't actually do anything or produce anything.

 

Again, who are these people? Why would the Council pay them to do nothing?

 

I do agree about consultants though!

 

If effective savings are made elsewhere, there should be no need to cut front line services.

 

Yet again, you're being vague, what are these 'effective savings'?

[Pat145]

Preferred supplier contracts are usually negotiated to get the best price. Can you give us some examples?

 

Do try to keep up. I just did.

 

So get rid of the Chief exec and you still don't save the mobile service.

Put the chief exec on a morally justifiable salary, sort out some of the others on high pay, use in-house expertise instead of consultants. Bingo, you can afford a decent library service.

 

Again, who are these people? Why would the Council pay them to do nothing?

 

They're doing it again? Definitely should be sacked!

 

Yet again, you're being vague, what are these 'effective savings'?

 

Short attention span, have we?

 

Seriously, this is just the first year of three years of cuts. If the council trash our library service this year (reduced hours, minimal mobile service, reduced amount of new books), imagine what you're going to have left when they take ANOTHER million out of the libraries budget in years 2 and 3. The service is already being cut to the bone.

 

It will be difficult to describe Sheffield as a city of culture when we've just a few libraries stocked with old books, no service to the outlying areas, and no service to people who are housebound.

 

People need to wake up to what is going on and let the council know what they think of it. The consultation period for these budget cuts is only a matter of days really. The council will vote on it on March 4th.

[espadrille]

Given that not one single library will close and a mobile library service, albeit reduced, will continue they probably are. Especially when you look at the mass library closures labour councillors have agreed in places like Manchester and Leeds.

 

Yes.It pales in comparison to those administrations.Better to at least keep the services open than not have them at all.

[espadrille]

The library lends, we borrow.

 

I wouldn't mind paying 20p to borrow a book, aslong as the money was taken out of my tax and not my own wallet.

 

You see that is where the problem is. Many people are up in arms if there is any mention of having to pay more tax/community charge.

[espadrille]

Ok so preserve the whole current library budget.

 

What do you cut?

 

There is a need to rant when this city can't move forward because someone is always spouting 'think of the vulnerable'. There are some vulnerable people but there are other 'vulnerable' people who have got themselves into a mess and are too lazy to even contemplate visiting a library unless it is handing out dole money.

 

The million dollar question. Sadly at the moment no one seems to be able to come up with an alternative suggestion.

[algy]

Sorry Pat, you didn't give an example of an expensive contract, or a comparison, just the name of a chain of office suppliers.

 

Who are the back office workers who don't actually do anything or produce anything?

 

Believe me my attention span is fine, I'm just waiting for you to start talking specifics rather than generalities, (e.g. some of the others on higher pay), better still with some evidence other than the chief exec's salary. (What do you suggest would be 'a morally justifiable salary' ?)

 

And lets suppose you actually come up with some factual, costed savings, do you really think they would be applied to keeping the status quo in the library service, when for example a children's hospice is being closed?

 

Believe it or not I don't want to see the library service cut either. It's hardly recovered from the cuts in the eighties, but given the present situation, it has to take a share of the present cuts, which are relatively mild compared to previous ones, and can't really be called 'trashing the service'.

That said, people do have to make their views known, or libraries will continue to be seen as a soft option and come in for worse treatment.

But you are right, the service can be as severely damaged by a series of small cuts as by one large hit, and there's precious little flesh left on the bone.

I just believe that to be taken seriously, you have to fight these things with reasoned arguments backed up by facts and specifics, not emotive arguments based on generalities.