***WARNING - RANT AHEAD***
I attended a focus group last week, the purpose of which was to help form a list of what is essential in a database package for Kansas. Sound pretty dry, right?
It was. But there was an interesting side to it that really wasn't talked about until the very end. The question on everyone's mind was, "How are we going to pay for this?" And the answer was, "We don't know, the money has all gone."
So how did this happen? Well, first off the economy went in the tank a couple of years ago. So, cost cutting became even more of a mantra in the legislature. And the cutting was done with a sword rather than a scalpel. So far, from a library perspective everything REALLY useful has been cut to the bone. Not only was state aid reduced (direct aid to libraries) for what I think was the 4th year in a row, several statewide programs were massacred. So this year, Kan-Ed had its funding slashed. This is basically because big telecoms don't want the downward price pressure on their services. You see, Kan-Ed provides low- or no-cost T-1 connections to public entities like libraries that can't otherwise afford "high speed" Internet. Now, I take issue with the definition of "high speed" Internet as our providers use it, but that's a rant for another day. Unfortunately, by slashing Kan-Ed's funding, over 50% of the funds for statewide databases - these tools provided here - disappeared. And in the next budget year, they are gone all together - nearly $1 million.
Now, bear in mind that all of the cutting, I was told directly, was to reduce the "government footprint". And, that ,"We're not looking to increase your [the library's] costs or reduce access..."
So, can you guess what happened? EXACTLY. Our direct costs, because we lost the power of purchasing in a state-wide contract, have increased and our ability to provide access to information has already and will continue to be drastically reduced over this year and next.
Lest you think that nothing was done to enlighten our state government as to the results of these actions, librarians and others across the state wrote, emailed, talked directly to, and testified in the state house about these matters. Only, instead of listening to feedback from knowledgeable sources, no provisions were made to transfer funds from Kan-Ed to the State Library to administer state-wide tools and services. Instead, contracts will lapse, work will have to be repeated, and much more struggle for funds will have to be made in order to even BEGIN negotiating new contracts - and worst of all, library service and credibility will be damaged.
You may not know this, but the Kan-Ed funds I have mentioned so often are actually "Kansas Universal Service Fund" (KUSF) monies. They are collected by the Kansas Corporation Commission and WILL CONTINUE to be collected at the same rate as before. The legislature merely choose to not allocate them to Kan-Ed. Taxes (or in this case service fees) are not any lower because of this action.
What can you do? Contact your legislator and ask her or him to allocate to the State Library KUSF funds not given to Kan-Ed to provide for state-wide library services. Kan-Ed funding went from $10 million per year to $6 million. That means there are $4 million available - even a quarter of that amount would allow us to restore lost services and take pressure off the State Library so that they might be able to stave off further cuts to direct aid or other services.
[Wipes spittle from corner of mouth]
I will challenge you to check a number of your facts. While I gain a big benefit from Kan-ED, it is full of waist, went beyond its legislative mandate, and yes KUSF funds that are collected are based on what is required, so yes less will be collected from the telcoms and thus less on your bills.
ReplyDeleteOh yea, and as for the telcomes. How about how Kan-Ed entered into an exclusive contract with AT&T. T1s, come on ATT is making boat loads off of Kansas by reselling us their 30 year old copper rather then building new infrastructure. Part of the goal was to get the telcoms to build that infrastructure into the schools and libraries.
Seriously I bet most libraries would love to just take the money Kan-ED spends on the T1s and get a 10 times faster DSL or Cable modem from their local ISP. Most would be bettered served.
Oh yea and read the the legislation. No where dose it mention content. It was to bring connectivity to under served areas and prompt telcos to install new infrastructure like fiber.
You make a fair number of points. I will grant you that the legislation does not specifically say anything about content and that's fine. What I guess I didn't get across was that libraries have now received the short end of the stick on every count.
ReplyDeleteYou skipped over some important points I made. The most important being that there were no provisions made, just a cut in order to cripple Kan-Ed. They couldn't even just disband the thing and create something new to address your concerns. Wouldn't that address your objections to waste and your implications that there were shady dealings? It would certainly make me feel better if there really are shady dealings going on!
You state repeatedly that the intent of Kan-Ed was to force big "telcomes" into upgrading their infrastructure. Since you have challenged me, I would challenge you to find and show me that infrastructure. I say the challenge was made and no one took them up on it.
As it stands now, the money will still be collected regardless of the cut to Kan-Ed. And unless citizens like you contact your legislator and ask her or him to funnel some of that money to libraries so that, as you say they "could just take the money" and buy a faster connection (that may or may not exist depending on where you live) nothing will have changed.
Yes, ask any librarian and they will tell you they would love to have that money, but it has been proven that it will take YOUR effort to get it to them. The librarians have had their say and the legislators have reduced funding and chosen not to allocate KUSF money. If you really believe what you say, contact your legislator and help us.
I do agree that the libraries got the short end of the stick. With regards to "content", financial support for the state library to purchase library database subscriptions should be provides via State General Fund or maybe KUSF.
ReplyDeleteAs I listened to the last legislative session and particularly the house floor debate, I think many legislators believe that they are a useful service.
My issue is that funding could and should be provided for these things, but not under the current Kan-ED program.
Kan-ED has been on think ice with the legislature the past few sessions for their arrogance and refusal to work with requests from the legislature. In making a point to Kan-ED leadership, the legislature should have made provisions to transfer that "content" funding to the state library.
Its my understanding Kan-ED didn't hold any of those contracts anyway, they just provided funding to the state library to purchase them.
On the connectivity front, Kan-ED has mostly failed. You are absolutely right, Kan-ED failed to spur the infrastructure development that was intended. Rather then being a method to subsidize developing that infrastructure such as fiber to the schools and libraries they have allowed a telcom to sell them T1s over existing infrastructure and call it "high-speed". In the case of small communities, often that infrastructure investment would have benefited entire communities not just the schools and libraries.
Kan-ED hasn't worked. Or at least hasn't worked under the existing Kan-ED program. So what next.
One option could be provide that $300-$400 a month for a T1 as a connectivity subsidy. (Again listening to the house floor debate, they are that expensive.) Then library can select what best meets their needs.
Again I personally agree that the "content" is valuable. However rather then restoring that funding to Kan-ED, move that funding directly to the state library where it belongs. Then Kan-Ed can focus on the connectivity mission that it was intended for. Or at least alternatives can be explored without the "content" issues complicating the connectivity issues.
I'm sorry I have to post anonymously, my livelihood could be jeopardized if I didn't.
Fair enough - I think we agree more than we disagree and I'm not a big fan of how Kan-Ed seemed to work (or fail to work) either. You seem to have some knowledge about its inner workings.
ReplyDeleteWe are all entitled to our opinions and I even warned everyone at the top of the post! ;-)
That aside, what gets me going is that the folks who ultimately get the short end of the stick are you and I. One of my main concerns as a librarian and a father is education. I want to provide the best we can through the most economical methods possible. If that involves a new system of support, fine with me!
To that end, I think the State Library could put unallocated funds of any sort to good use. Direct aid to libraries for bandwidth would be great too!
Thank you for your comments and please feel free to contact me directly if you so desire.