Anger as a Private Company Takes Over Libraries

~I'll get back to the medical ethics lecture series review soon, but for now, here's an interesting (and disturbing) article from the Times:

As L.S.S.I. Takes Over Libraries, Patrons Can't Keep Quiet

The "journalism" here is a bit on the shoddy side (no library staff were interviewed...maybe they're afraid they'll be fired?), but reading the comments section does warm my heart.  The vast majority of commenters are horrified by the library privatization in Santa Clarita, especially since this was done not to a failing or budget-crippling library system, but in hopes of nebulous future savings.

So here's a question for you to ponder: are there some public services which ought not to be privatized, even if doing so would make it less expensive for taxpayers?  Imagine if your police were privatized to an out-of-state (or even out-of-country) contractor.  We've all seen the problems that result from "security contractors" in Iraq.  The potential for abuse is enormous, and I believe libraries fall squarely into this category of "not to be privatized".  This isn't for vague reasons about them being cornerstones of democracy, etc., but because a private, for-profit company has little incentive to provide good library services to patrons (who are, after all, not the ones signing the service contract), and every reason to slowly but surely skimp on the operating budget to line their own pockets.

As many of the commentors point out, the way that Library Systems & Services (headquartered in Maryland, anonymously owned by Islington Capital Partners of Boston, finances undisclosed) makes money is by taking over existing services (conveniently with no capital costs to themselves), firing the workers, then re-hiring them at lower wages and benefits.  In this case, the CEO justified the takeover by spinning a story about over-paid, lazy, unionized librarians who "never have to do anything" for decades.  How DARE they!  Why, it's almost as if librarians think they need a master's degree or something.  I mean, everything's on the interwebs now, right?  Right?

And what of those other annoying operating costs, like books and other new materials?  What's to keep the company from reducing the acquisitions budget and pocketing the resulting savings?  Or dictating acquisitions from a central location, resulting in homogenization of library branches?  Or not buying books or materials that the company owners personally dislike or otherwise disapprove of?

Most disturbing of all is the final paragraph of the article: "...And the volunteers are still showing up — even if their assistance is now aiding a private company. “We volunteer more than ever now,” Mr. Ceragioli said."  

Wow, free labor!  How convenient!

I can only hope that this decision is reversed, but I have a chilling feeling that this is the future of public libraries in America, regardless of what (former?) library patrons actually want.