Editorial- Don't Let Government Off the Hook

Fundraising is dangerous! An ancient and honorable way to add to the resources of a public library, private fundraising must be handled with great care or it can have exactly the opposite effect. It can undermine the case for tax support upon which public libraries must depend.

Certainly, no one opposes fundraising for public libraries. As Andrew Albanese points out in his article on fundraising (p. 40–43), the practice can make a tremendous difference in library service. Private donations can provide the "margin of excellence," the difference that can make adequate library service superior.

The problem is where to draw the line. When, for example, the mayor tells the trustees that the city cannot increase the library budget until the library starts a foundation to raise private money, he comes very close to crossing that line. That negotiation has occurred in dozens of cities. It rarely results in increased resources for that library. When city fathers make public money a quid pro quo for private funds, they are pandering to our dislike of taxes and playing politics with essential public services.

When a public service is supported and sustained with private philanthropy, it weakens its argument for being an essential public service. You don't see the police or fire departments out raising money. They are too vital to community safety to depend on the ups and downs of private giving. The public schools sometimes get private donations, but nearly always they pay for extras like new band uniforms or instruments or improved athletic facilities. The core educational program is funded by mandated taxes, even though it is very expensive.

The public library, used directly by more people than police, fire departments, or schools, must maintain its claim as an essential public service to survive. It informs all ages, and that information is as essential to modern living and citizenship as formal schooling. When you allow the public library to depend on private money, you suggest that it is unworthy of that essential tax support that has paid 90 percent of its budget since libraries were founded.

Many librarians and trustees are so wary of private money that they use it only for capital projects, but private donations have paid for books, much-needed technology, increased hours, and staff development activities like conferences and continuing education. One protective strategy is to tell the city fathers that the public money attracts the private. Make the case that strong public support makes the library attractive to donors. Used cautiously that way, private funding can help tremendously.

My favorite model is the "seed money" approach. The most difficult problem with private donations is sustaining the results they achieve. It is fine to seek donors to support bold new initiatives in library service or facilities, provided that it is clearly understood at the outset that the program will ultimately be sustained in the normal, tax-based operating budget of the library.

Right now many American communities are trying to reduce the cost of government. Inevitably, these cuts hit library budgets. While it is useful to seek private money to support the library, it is more important to strengthen the case for the public budget, rather than to replace that tax money with donations.

In hard times, libraries are more heavily used. They offer the information and recreation that can help every citizen get through difficulties more easily and effectively. That is still a job for government. It is a job that can be enhanced with private support, but private funding is not dependable enough to be given total responsibility for that important work. Don't let the government off the hook.