Library Referenda 2005: By the People
Dramatic ups and downs at the polls mean harder work to garner support
By Anne Marie Gold -- Library Journal, 3/15/2006
|
| Location | Library | Population | Passed? | % Yes | % No | Amount |
| Alaska | ||||||
| Big Lake | Big Lake PL | 2,912 | NO | 36% | 64% | $800,000 |
| Arkansas | ||||||
| Jacksonville | Esther DeWitt Nixon Lib. | 30,323 | YES | 68 | 32 | 2,100,000 |
| Arizona | ||||||
| Yuma | Yuma Cty. Lib. Dist. | 1,350,000 | YES | 53 | 47 | 53,765,000 |
| Colorado | ||||||
| Durango | Durango PL | 49,168 | YES | 55 | 45 | n/a |
| Fort Collins | Fort Collins PL | 137,391 | YES | 72 | 28 | n/a |
| Montrose | Montrose Regional Lib. Dist. | 33,000 | NO | 41 | 59 | 80,000 |
| Steamboat Spgs. | Bud Werner Memorial Lib. | 15,261 | YES | 55 | 45 | 11,400,000 |
| Thornton | Rangeview Lib. Dist. | 283,787 | NO | 45 | 55 | 52,000,000 |
| Connecticut | ||||||
| Guilford | Guilford Free Lib. | 22,000 | NO | 56 | 44 | 10,300,000 |
| Ledyard | Bill Lib. | 14,882 | NO | 46 | 54 | 4,500,000 |
| Georgia | ||||||
| Augusta | Augusta-Richmond Cty. PL | 365,000 | YES | 68 | 32 | 14,700,000 |
| Idaho | ||||||
| Downey | South Bannock Lib. Dist. | 8,155 | YES | 67 | 33 | 1,009,410 |
| Illinois | ||||||
| Carol Stream | Carol Stream PL | 40,500 | NO | 39 | 61 | 19,500,000 |
| Glenwood | Glenwood-Lynwood PL Dist. | 16,377 | YES | 59 | 41 | 7,000,000 |
| Huntley | Huntley Area PL | 34,000 | NO | 25 | 75 | 14,900,000 |
| Lanark | Lanark PL | 1,584 | NO | 41 | 59 | 500,000 |
| Lemont | Lemont PL Dist. | 22,017 | NO | 33 | 67 | 3,500,000 |
| Northlake | Northlake PL Dist. | 26,653 | YES | 53 | 47 | 8,900,000 |
| Kansas | ||||||
| Eureka | Eureka Carnegie Lib. | 2,800 | YES | 68 | 32 | 1,200,000 |
| Massachusetts | ||||||
| Bolton | Bolton PL | 4,858 | NO | 52 | 48 | 4,200,000 |
| Boxford | Boxford Town Lib. | 8,800 | NO | town meeting |
50,000 | |
| Dartmouth | Dartmouth PLs | 31,158 | NO | 46 | 54 | 6,325,000 |
| Mattapoisett | Mattapoisett Free PL | 6,500 | NO | 47 | 53 | 1,800,000 |
| Mattapoisett | Mattapoisett Free PL | 6,500 | YES | 57 | 43 | 1,436,394 |
| Middleton | Flint PL | 7,744 | YES | 62 | 38 | 6,906,093 |
| Milford | Milford Town Lib. | 27,305 | YES | 77 | 23 | 1,450,000 |
| Millis | Millis PL | 8,089 | NO | 49 | 51 | 5,000,000 |
| Milton | Milton PL | 26,062 | YES | 74 | 26 | 8,000,000 |
| Wilmington | Wilmington Memorial Lib. | 22,238 | NO | 39 | 61 | 8,300,000 |
| Michigan | ||||||
| Ionia | Ionia Community Lib. | 21,223 | NO | 27% | 73% | $7,450,000 |
| Otsego | Otsego Dist. PL | 13,613 | NO | 31% | 69% | $3,420,000 |
| Minnesota | ||||||
| Atwater | Atwater PL | 700 | NO | 34% | 66% | $725,000 |
| New Hampshire | ||||||
| Gilford | Gilford PL | 7,409 | NO | 32% | 68% | $2,300,000 |
| Petersborough | Peterborough Town Lib. | 6,300 | YES | 58% | 42% | $66,000 |
| New York | ||||||
| Elmsford | Greenburgh PL | 46,000 | YES | 51% | 49% | $19,867,747 |
| Honeoye Falls | Town of Mendon PL | 8,370 | NO | 40% | 60% | $3,000,000 |
| Kingston | Kingston Lib. | 23,480 | YES | 74% | 26% | $1,000,000 |
| Mount Kisco | Mount Kisco PL | 12,000 | YES | 64% | 36% | $8,000,000 |
| North Carolina | ||||||
| Charlotte | PLof Charlotte & Mecklenburg County |
785,000 | NO | 47% | 53% | $1,750,000 |
| Ohio | ||||||
| Wooster | Wayne County PL | 113,506 | YES | 55% | 45% | $6,000,000 |
| Oklahoma | ||||||
| Tulsa | Tulsa City-County Lib. | 581,693 | NO | 43% | 57% | $79,100,000 |
| Texas | ||||||
| Denton | Denton PL | 106,057 | YES | 64% | 36% | $2,100,000 |
| Hurst | Hurst PL | 37,500 | YES | 72% | 28% | $1,500,000 |
| Terrell | Riter C. Hulsey PL | 25,873 | NO | 37% | 63% | $4,000,000 |
| Wylie | Rita and Truett Smith PL | 29,800 | YES | 72% | 28% | $8,100,000 |
| Virginia | ||||||
| Hanover | Pamunkey Regional Lib. | 134,100 | YES | 73% | 27% | $5,077,000 |
| Richmond | Henrico County PL | 274,947 | YES | 61% | 39% | $56,400,000 |
| Washington | ||||||
| St. John | St. John Branch, Whitman County Lib. |
500 | YES | 76% | 23% | $500,000 |
| TOTAL | 48 ($459,977,644) | YES 25 (52%) | NO 23 (48%) | |||
| SOURCE: LJ PL REFERENDA 2005 | ||||||
| YEAR | # | % PASS | % FAIL | AMOUNT | VOTE PRO | VOTE CON | ELECTION GEN | ELECTION SPEC | OTHER BALLOT ITEMS YES | OTHER BALLOT ITEMS NO |
| 2005 | 48 | 52% | 48% | $459,977,644 | 53% | 47% | 41% | 59% | 68% | 32% |
| 2004 | 49 | 69% | 31% | 556,215,000 | 58% | 42% | 54% | 46% | 67% | 33% |
| 2003 | 59 | 76% | 24% | 434,462,495 | 63% | 37% | 39% | 61% | 61% | 39% |
| 2002 | 43 | 60% | 40% | 430,318,317 | 57% | 43% | 58% | 42% | 81% | 19% |
| 2001* | 41 | 80% | 20% | 273,788,000 | 61% | 39% | 46% | 54% | 56% | 44% |
| 2000* | 64 | 91% | 9% | 877,236,818 | 59% | 41% | 48% | 52% | 77% | 23% |
| 1999 | 56 | 88% | 12% | 736,801,158 | 65% | 35% | 57% | 43% | 60% | 40% |
| 1998 | 55 | 71% | 29% | 361,056,500 | 62% | 38% | 60% | 40% | 44% | 56% |
| 1997 | 58 | 84% | 16% | 367,944,431 | 64% | 60% | 67% | 33% | 53% | 47% |
| 1996 | 64 | 89% | 11% | 288,235,877 | 67% | 33% | 52% | 48% | 53% | 47% |
| TOTAL/ AVERAGES |
237 | 76% | 24% | $4,786,036,240 | 61% | 39% | 52% | 48% | 62% | 38% |
| *Covers December 2000 to November 2001 **Covers 18 months from July 1999 to December 2000 SOURCE: LJPUBLIC LIBRARY REFERENDA 2005 |
||||||||||
| Location | Name of Library | Population | Passed? | % Yes | % No | Amount | Type |
| Arkansas | |||||||
| Maumelle | Central Ark. Lib. Syst., Maumelle Lib. | 14,309 | YES | 59% | 41% | $110,000 | Renew |
| California | |||||||
| Los Gatos | Santa Clara Cty. Lib. | 409,853 | YES | 72 | 27 | 5,400,000 | Renew |
| Los Gatos | Santa Clara Cty. Lib. | 409,853 | NO | 64 | 36 | 1,900,000 | Increase |
| Placerville | El Dorado Cty. Lib., Placerville & Pollock Pines Branches | 168,100 | NO | 55 | 45 | n/a | New |
| Placerville | El Dorado Cty. Lib., Placerville & Pollock Pines Branches | 168,100 | NO | 66 | 34 | n/a | New |
| Salinas | Salinas PL | 151,000 | YES | 61 | 39 | 11,000,000 | Increase |
| San Anselmo | San Anselmo Lib. | 12,400 | NO | 55 | 45 | 1,600,000 | New |
| South Pasadena | South Pasadena PL | 25,700 | YES | 84 | 16 | 225,000 | Extend |
| Colorado | |||||||
| Fort Collins | Fort Collins PL | 137,391 | YES | 72 | 28 | 595,000 | Extend |
| Greeley | Weld Lib. Dist. | 225,000 | NO | 42 | 58 | 88,000 | New |
| Greeley | Weld Lib. Dist. | 225,000 | YES | 62 | 38 | 277,500 | New |
| Steamboat Spgs. | Bud Werner Memorial Lib. | 15,261 | YES | 57 | 43 | 625,000 | New |
| Idaho | |||||||
| Downey | South Bannock Lib. Dist. | 8,155 | YES | 68 | 32 | n/a | Increase |
| Emmett | Emmett PL | 6,000 | NO | 10 | 90 | 325,562 | New |
| Illinois | |||||||
| Bensenville | Bensenville Community PL Dist. | 23,662 | NO | 49 | 50 | 575,000 | Increase |
| Crete | Crete PL Dist. | 19,520 | NO | 45 | 55 | 190,000 | Increase |
| Huntley | Huntley Area PL | 34,000 | NO | 25 | 75 | 850,000 | New |
| Lemont | Lemont PL Dist. | 22,017 | NO | 29 | 70 | 497,052 | Increase |
| Royalton | Royalton PL Dist. | 1,130 | YES | 61 | 38 | 13,434 | Increase |
| Sugar Grove | Sugar Grove PL Dist. | 12,078 | NO | 45 | 55 | 900,000 | Increase |
| Winnetka | Winnetka-Northfield PL | 17,808 | YES | 63 | 37 | n/a | Increase |
| Iowa | |||||||
| Letts | Letts PL | 392 | NO | 50 | 50 | 1,300 | New |
| Louisiana | |||||||
| Abbeville | Vermilion Parish Lib. | 53,000 | NO | 85 | 15 | n/a | Increase |
| Abbeville | Vermilion Parish Lib. | 53,000 | YES | 69 | 31 | n/a | Increase |
| Baton Rouge | East Baton Rouge Parish Lib. | 416,881 | YES | 62 | 38 | n/a | Renew |
| Jena | LaSalle Parish Lib. | 10,945 | YES | 70 | 29 | 295,000 | Renew |
| Marksville | Avoyelles Parish Lib. | 43,000 | YES | 66 | 33 | 425,000 | New |
| Plaquemine | Iberville Parish Lib. | 31,300 | YES | 83 | 17 | 1,182,700 | Renew |
| Port Allen | West Baton Rouge Parish Lib. | 21,601 | YES | 74 | 26 | 800,000 | Renew |
| Maine | |||||||
| York | York PL | 15,000 | YES | 57 | 43 | 302,000 | Renew |
| York | York PL | 15,000 | YES | 52 | 48 | 58,000 | Increase |
| Massachusetts | |||||||
| Acton | Acton Memorial Lib. | 20,000 | YES | 54% | 46% | $3,800,000 | Override |
| Byfield | Newbury Town Lib. | 6,700 | NO | $1,500,000 | Increase | ||
| Dartmouth | Dartmouth Public Libraries | 31,158 | NO | 38% | 58% | $400,000 | Override |
| Rockland | Rockland Memorial Lib. | 17,861 | YES | n/a | |||
| Sudbury | Goodnow Lib. | 17,250 | YES | 51% | 48% | $3,050,000 | Override |
| Swampscott | Swampscott PL | 14,000 | YES | 57% | 43% | $30,000 | Override |
| Tyngsborough | Tyngsborough PL | 11,708 | NO | 1.24-1.9 mill | Override | ||
| Wayland | Wayland Free PL | 14,000 | YES | 60% | 40% | $2,300,000 | Override |
| Winchester | Winchester PL | 20,200 | NO | 40% | 60% | $61,000 | Override |
| Michigan | |||||||
| Ionia | Ionia Community Lib. | 21,223 | NO | 28% | 72% | $170,000 | New |
| Ohio | |||||||
| Barberton | Barberton PL | 27,899 | YES | 51% | 48% | $563,726 | Increase |
| Cuyahoga Falls | Cuyahoga Falls Lib. | 44,832 | NO | 48% | 51% | New | |
| Euclid | Euclid PL | 52,717 | YES | 55% | 45% | $2,976,138 | Replace+ |
| Warren | Warren-Trumbull Cty. PL | 161,000 | NO | 48% | 52% | $2,600,000 | New |
| Worthington | Worthington Libraries | 59,232 | YES | 58% | 42% | $4,007,632 | New |
| Youngstown | PL of Youngstown and Mahoning Cty. | 255,000 | YES | 61% | 49% | $3,400,000 | Replace+ |
| Oklahoma | |||||||
| Tulsa | Tulsa City-Cty. Lib. | 581,693 | NO | 43% | 57% | n/a | Increase |
| Pennsylvania | |||||||
| Brockway | Jefferson Cty. Lib. System | 45,932 | NO | 34% | 66% | n/a | New |
| Lancaster | Lib. System of Lancaster Cty. | 487,332 | NO | 46% | 54% | $7,000,000 | New |
| Northampton | Northampton Area PL | 38,251 | NO | 45% | 55% | $750,000 | New |
| Texas | |||||||
| Round Top | Round Top Family Lib. | 80 | NO | 29% | 71% | n/a | New |
| Vermont | |||||||
| Manchester | Mark Skinner Lib. | 4,180 | YES | 100% | 0% | $120,000 | Renew |
| Shelburne | Pierson Lib. | 7,000 | YES | 65% | 35% | $171,006 | Renew |
| Washington | |||||||
| Endicott | Whitman Cty. Lib., Endicott Branch | 350 | YES | 76% | 23% | $5,000 | Renew |
| Selah | Yakima Valley Regional Lib., Selah Branch | 6,800 | YES | 71% | 29% | $200,000 | New |
| West Virginia | |||||||
| Romney | Hampshire Cty. PL | 15,862 | YES | 80% | 20% | $94,987 | Renew |
| Sistersville | Sistersville PL | 11,320 | YES | 70% | 30% | $10,544 | Renew |
| TOTAL | 58 ($62,695,581) | YES 33 ($42,037,667) | NO 25 ($20,657,914) | ||||
| **Two towns voted on annexing to the district: Palouse & Tekoa. The town of Endicott voted to contract with the district. | |||||||
| ***The referendum was to keep the Town of Newbold in the library district. | |||||||
| SOURCE: LJ Public Library Referenda 2005 | |||||||
| Author Information |
| Ann Marie Gold is Director, Sacramento Public Library, CA. Special thanks to Ann Kim, Special Projects Coordinator, LJ, for research assistance |
Tiered proposals worked but took a bite from the bottom line, Salinas found eventual success, and leveraging the grass-roots power of volunteers proved essential in a year where library ballots faced off with national and international impact from a series of natural disasters, growing concern over the war in Iraq, and a still-unsteady economy. Despite a number of savvy strategies, though, it was a tough year at the polls for libraries. Both building and operating referenda had the lowest passage rates this decade (see Table 2 & Table 4), with only 52% of capital referenda and 57% of operating referenda finding success. In fact, in the 18 years since Library Journal has been tracking these votes, 2005 had the lowest passing percentage for both types of ballots.
There was no single dramatic indicator for the change in fortunes for America's libraries, rather just a slowing down of voter appreciation for these institutions and the willingness to fund them. The stories of the losses and the wins may spell new trends for libraries seeking voter support.
Strong sentiments
There were 48 building referenda reported in 2005, for a total of $459,977,644. Fifty-two percent were approved, adding up to $226,477,644, or 49% of the amount requested. The passing rate is down significantly from the 69% in 2004. Overall, the percentage of Yes votes was 53%, down from 58% in 2004, but for those referenda that were successful, 64% of the voters were in accord. However, when voters said No, they did so resoundingly. For those losing referenda, 57% of voters turned thumbs down. There were many more referenda in special elections (26) vs. general elections (18), but voters preferred general elections, with 56% of those passing vs. 46% in special elections.
Having other items on the ballot doesn't seem to matter, with virtually no difference in the passing rate whether or not there was competition. However, in comparison with 2004, when 73% of those measures having other items on the ballot passed, only 50% passed this year. The same goes for the timing of elections; as usual, the summer was the least popular period, but the passage rate was similar regardless of the month. In 2004, the last quarter of the year was strongest for referenda, a pattern that was not repeated in 2005. Large-dollar-amount referenda fared just as well as smaller ones, with the passing rates for those over and under $10 million at 50%.
Keep it in operation
|
There were only 58 operating referenda reported in 2005, the lowest number since 2000. Of that number, 57% were successful, down from 2004's 70%. In general, more voters were partial to operating referenda than building referenda, with 55% of voters voting Yes, and a 66% Yes vote in those referenda that passed. General elections (30) were more popular than special elections (20), but more special elections passed (65%) than general elections (57%), the reverse of the capital ballot picture. Over two-thirds of the referenda had ballot competition, yet a higher percentage of those with other items on the ballot passed (68%) than those without competition (only 50%).
Elections were spread fairly evenly throughout the year, but surprisingly it was summer voters who loved their libraries the best, with 71% of operating referenda passing in the May–August time period. As with building referenda, when voters liked the measure, they were strongly in favor, with passing measures receiving a median 66% Yes vote. However, voters are also keen to express their disagreement with library funding, and when they turned down referenda, they did so very clearly, with losing referenda seeing only 41% approval. While so often library referenda that lose by only a few votes make the news—14 votes in California's El Dorado County in March—the real story is that when voters say no, they say so in no uncertain terms. El Dorado County voters were more emphatic a second time around in November 2005, defeating a similar measure with a 45% No vote (this being the land of the supermajority, requiring the almost mythical 66.6% for passage). In fact, if all the states followed the path of California's Prop 13 voters and required a supermajority for taxes, only 13 of the 57 measures would have passed.
Behind the headlines
| Number of Measures |
Pass Rate |
||
| TYPE OF ELECTION |
General Election | 18 | 56% |
| Special Election | 26 | 46% | |
| OTHER ITEMS | Yes | 32 | 50% |
| ON BALLOT | No | 15 | 53% |
| DATE | Dec.–Apr. | 16 | 50% |
| May–Aug. | 9 | 56% | |
| Sept.–Nov. | 23 | 52% | |
| AMOUNT | Under $10 million | 36 | 50% |
| Over $10 million | 10 | 50% | |
| MEDIAN "YES" VOTE FOR MEASURES THAT PASS |
64% | ||
| MEDIAN "YES" VOTE ON ALL | 53% | ||
| SOURCE: LJ PUBLIC LIBRARY REFERENDA 2005 | |||
What are some of the stories that impact elections? The Bill Library in Ledyard, CT, had the misfortune to have its local shipyard put on the BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure) list two days before the election. In addition, a town official actively campaigned against the new library bond measure saying it was too big and too expensive. With a double hit such as this, Ledyard voters only supported the new library by 46% but did go for a companion measure for a scaled-down project. The Dartmouth Public Library, MA, attributes the loss of its bond measure to a competing operating cost increase request; too often voters get dollar fatigue when faced with multiple requests for money.
A change in voting patterns also can change how libraries fare. In Gilford, NH, voting changed from a town meeting to a traditional ballot, and the bond measure for a new library lost, with only 32% of the voters saying Yes, even less than the Yes vote in 2004. However, good things do come to those who wait. In Wooster, OH, after a measure for a new main library was defeated in November 2002, the community rolled up its sleeves and went back to work. A campaign that included a model at the County Fair and the proposed site spray-painted with the first floor outline clearly demonstrated that in Wooster “Readers Make Leaders.” The measure passed with a 55% Yes vote.
The tiered alternative
Unsure whether voters will support local referenda, some libraries chose to provide voters with options for levels of support. In most cases, voters reacted in a predictable manner, selecting the lower-cost alternative. In Acton, MA, voters were given a choice for the Prop 2½ override for a permanent increase to the tax rate, and indeed the lower-cost alternative got the nod over the higher one.
The Santa Clara County Library, CA, went back to the voters in May with a tiered alternative to renew an existing tax. Measure A, which asked voters to renew the tax at the current rate of $33 per year, passed by 72.04%, but Measure B, which would have increased the tax by another $12 per year, failed at 64.23% Yes votes, needing two-thirds to pass. The 2005 referenda followed on the heels of a failed referendum in March 2004 that had asked voters to approve a $41 per year tax. Melinda Cervantes, county librarian for Santa Clara County, reported that the May 2005 election was a mail ballot, the first time one had been used for a library election in California. She also noted that the “library governing board (Joint Powers Authority) closed all nine libraries on Mondays beginning October 2004 owing to a decrease in other state and local revenues. If both measures failed to pass, the JPA was prepared to reduce hours significantly and lay off 100 library employees.”
The one bright spot in trying for tiered voter approval was in York, ME. There voters were asked to support a base budget and did so with a 57% Yes vote; a companion measure approved additional funding to open an extra day each week.
Are we spinning our wheels?
| YEAR | # | % PASS | % FAIL |
| 2005 | 58 | 57% | 43% |
| 2004 | 66 | 70 | 30 |
| 2003 | 84 | 83 | 17 |
| 2002 | 58 | 67 | 33 |
| 2001 | 13 | 69 | 31 |
| 2000 | 49 | 92 | 8 |
| 1999 | 60 | 82 | 18 |
| 1998 | 107 | 83 | 17 |
| 1997 | 67 | 82 | 18 |
| 1996 | 75 | 84 | 16 |
| SOURCE: LJ Public Library Referenda 2005 |
|||
Sometimes the road to the ballot can be circuitous. In Colorado, voters in two separate communities, Erie and Dacono, were asked whether they wanted to join the Weld Library District and chose different options. Janine Reed, executive director of the district, tells the tale of the successful election in Erie. “The Town of Erie straddles Weld and Boulder counties. The Weld County side is served by the Weld Library District. The Boulder County side is not part of any library service area. The mayor of the Town of Erie led the effort to add a clause to the Colorado Library Law to allow inclusion of a municipality into an existing library district. The Weld Library District, Colorado Association of Libraries, and Colorado Municipal League supported the measure. Once the legislative component was in place, the town conducted a professional survey to ascertain whether or not the voters would approve such a measure. The survey was encouraging, so a citizens group was formed to campaign. They went door to door, providing information about the new library the Weld Library District would build if they joined. It was a great success, and the Weld Library District is now planning a 20,000 square foot library that will serve the entire town.” Sadly, Dacono voters were not quite as interested in improving community library services, and their measure failed, with only 42% in favor.
The Salinas Public Library, CA, had well-publicized brushes with the ballot in 2005. After losing a library measure in the spring, the city council agreed to put an emergency measure on the November ballot for a sales tax increase that only required a simple majority and would fund a variety of city services, including the library. Voters said Yes to the tune of 61%, and the library has begun to restore services decimated over the previous months.
Learning to persevere
Libraries often need to show dogged determination to get the approval of voters. In 2005, several libraries were back on the ballot for the second and third time looking for a win. Maumelle, AR, finally passed its local operating measure to add new operating dollars, after a defeat of a similar measure in 2004 by about 100 votes. When asked how long the new funding measure would be in effect, deputy director Linda Bly cheerfully reported, “Forever.” Illinois voters were not so kind to repeat attempts, with voters turning down second-time measures in Crete and Lemont but approving the one in Royalton. First-time measures also failed in Bensenville and Sugar Grove but passed in the affluent community of Winnetka. The Barberton Public Library, OH, was successful in its second try with voters for a tax increase. In Abbeville, LA, the Vermilion Parish Library unsuccessfully asked for a 2.5-mill increase to its levy in January 2005 but was successful in getting voters to support a much more modest increase in July. Of course, Hurricane Katrina took its toll on the library in August, with the loss of two branches and damage to another.
In Mattapoisett, MA, the library had a roundabout route to a new library building. In June 2002, voters approved a $500,000 measure as a match for a state grant. However, since that would not fund the full cost of the new building, supporters raised $1.4 million. Unfortunately, in the meantime, the project cost had increased from $3.7 million to $5.2 million, so the library went back to the voters. In June, voters turned down a $1.8 million measure by a slim margin of 77 votes but turned around in October and approved $1.4 million. When asked what made the difference in the two elections, library director Judith Wallace talked about intensifying campaign efforts, focusing on the need for accessibility to the building, and even standing in the rain during a nor'easter holding signs in front of a Support Your Library, Vote Yes banner at the polls. As she noted, “We enlisted volunteers from all walks of life and areas of town. We could not have won this without them!”
Interesting mixture
It was a mixed year for larger libraries, with the Public Library of Youngstown and Mahoning County, OH, winning an increased operating levy. “We were very fortunate in developing a campaign that took on a life of its own with the public's attention and enthusiasm,” said Director Carlton Sears. “The theme was 'I Love My Library,' featuring testimonials from real local library users, coupled with all the typical printed and paid advertising. None of the advertising talked about why we needed the money but rather simply why individuals love their library. We quickly ran out of automobile window stickers and yard signs. The theme was so popular that we continue to use it in ongoing promotional materials.”
The Tulsa City-County Library was not so fortunate: both of its December 2004 elections, one a capital referenda for a $79 million bond for both a new central library and branches and the other for an increase in its operating millage, failed. The Public Library of Charlotte & Mecklenburg County, NC, similarly suffered defeat when it asked voters for funds for the purchase of land for a new regional library. The Yuma County Library District, AZ, however, prevailed with a $53.7 million bond for a new main library and branches.
The wonder in the telling
As always, library campaigns often make wonderful stories. The Wayland Free Public Library, MA, pulled out all the stops for its town Prop 2½ override, including organizing babysitting so parents with young children could attend evening town meetings. This wonderful small-town tactic was countered by the opposition offering rides to people who wanted to vote but were unable to get to the polls easily, most of whom were senior citizens who were opposed to the override. The LaSalle Parish Library, Jena, LA, bested the Sheriff's Department sales tax ballot measure and was successful in renewing its levy. According to Andrea Book, acting director, “We were very lucky because the president of our library board is also the editor/owner of the local newspaper. He gave us special coverage. We were backed by the Republican women's group, which just loves to take on a cause. The women made phone calls and set up an information booth at our local 'Howdy Neighbor Day.' Other than these measures, we went very low key. We have proved that it doesn't take money to win. It takes careful strategizing and teaming up with the community. Your patrons are your best publicity.”
In Romney, WV, the Hampshire County Public Library continued its successful ways, after winning its first levy in 1987 with the highest passing percentage for a special tax levy in the state. All the poll workers this time donated their services, and the election was held with no expense to the county. As Director Brenda Riffle proudly remarked, “This was a 'by the people, for the people' event.”
Last year presented quite a mixed bag of library referenda. The combination of an off-year for general elections, continuing concern about the war in Iraq, an economy just beginning its resurgence, and the natural disasters likely influenced voters. Nonetheless, seeing the continuing downward trend in library referenda passage over the past ten years will give librarians pause when considering whether to go to the polls, as it appears to be an increasingly less sure bet. However, for those who are able to bring together the necessary resources in terms of community support and often multi­year perseverance, voters can be a library's best friend.
