Library Referenda 2008: Libraries Build the Case for Voter Support

Could there be a worse time to ask voters for money to support libraries? America in 2008 was distinguished by a rapidly downward-spiraling economy, a controversial war, and a President with the lowest approval rating in history. The first quarter of the year was pockmarked with contentious primary battles, and by the time voters went to the polls in November, the government was emptying its pockets to support a financial system on the verge of collapse.

Despite the turmoil, most libraries LJ tracked won their referenda at a rate just slightly lower than 2007. Nearly three-quarters of operating referenda passed. Building referenda under $10 million passed at a whopping 85%, with those over $10 million batting slightly better than 500. Among the larger requests was a spectacular win by Atlanta-Fulton Public Library. Its request for a $275 million bond for the most extensive library building program in Georgia’s history was approved by voters at a rate of two to one. In California, the Palo Alto City Library will build new and expand existing libraries with $76 million approved by nearly 70% of its constituents. And in Idaho, the Boise Basin Library District won a fight for its very life when voters supported the library with 81% of the ballot.

The economy’s health impacted voter support in different ways. In Alaska, rising gas prices meant boom times, which led Anchorage Public Library development director Clare Stockert to remark that the passage of the library bond—the first to pass in more than three decades—might have been a matter of catching voters “in a good mood.” Worries about the economy took their toll in a variety of votes, including the Kent Memorial Library, CT, where initial enthusiasm for a new building petered out as gas prices climbed and the economy soured, making the library’s request for $13 million politically unpopular. “An organized opposition appeared to be tacitly approved by town hall,” says Director James McShane.

Yet, in Ohio, where a sluggish manufacturing base has meant a deep economic decline and ultratight government budgets, voters consistently supported their libraries. Among the wins for operating and building referenda in 2008 were Cleveland Public Library and its neighbor Cuyahoga County Public Library, as well as Stark County District Library.

With economists continuing to predict that things are likely to get worse before they get better, the chances of catching voters in a good mood in 2009 (or 2010…) are slim. Libraries with referenda on the ballot this year are likely to face a populace worn thin by corporate bailouts and an uncertain future. Nonetheless, we can and should learn from the libraries that fought and won in 2008.

Ohio voters are traditionally strong supporters of their libraries. Since no one has discovered unique DNA among these residents, one has to assume it’s because libraries there have a tradition of delivering value for the tax dollars they receive. For example, both Cleveland and Cuyahoga County public libraries have long track records of deep engagement in their communities at all levels. They work in concert with their mayors, city and county councils, business leaders, and community organizations of all types. Library representatives attend functions and meetings for all these groups, creating a flow of information in and out of the library that builds success.

Engagement overcomes a challenge revealed in 2008 research from OCLC. From Funding to Awareness: A Study of Library Support in America (www.oclc.org/reports/funding) says that voters are largely unaware of the extensive variety of programs and activities that libraries undertake. Further, in the presence of “substitutes” for traditional library services (read: Barnes & Noble, Google), it’s these nontraditional programs—those that others simply can’t replace—that build strong, supportive voting advocates.

Engagement builds multiple points of contact to gather feedback to create new programs that address community issues and ongoing opportunities to talk about that outreach. Just as important, those contacts are channels for quickly reaching and amassing an army of volunteers.

“Community engagement was the hallmark of the development of the [building and renovation] plan and the success of its passage,” says John Szabo, Atlanta-Fulton PL System director. Indeed, the library had a significant challenge in that neither major local newspaper endorsed passage of the bond. As county employees, library staffers were prevented from advocating for the bond, so they leveraged their network of supporters to create a speakers’ bureau, which touched thousands of residents at a wide variety of civic and community organizations.

In Montana, Helena’s Lewis & Clark Library saw the impact of seven years of aggressive outreach when its measure passed by more than 70%. Its last levy squeaked by at just over 50%. Since then, the library launched new programs, services, and technology, as well as expanded hours. That improved outreach built fans in both the business and education sectors, and they formed a campaign committee to support a new levy. What campaign methods were used for their success? Director Judy Hart says, “Visibility is the key.”

While a track record of engagement and visibility should be every library’s goal, it’s never too early to get started. The San Diego County Library turned up the heat on visibility at its Lemon Grove Branch Library just six months before the branch’s referendum passed with more than 70% of the vote. The library formed a task force to plan special events that brought residents into the library. According to Donna M. Ohr, supervising librarian, capital projects and facilities, “The series of events culminated days before the election with a daylong 'haunted library’ Halloween festival attended by approximately 600 people.”

Des Plaines Valley PL Distict in suburban Chicago has a larger challenge. The community has become a mecca for senior housing developments, which Director Scott Pointon describes as “cities within the city,” with all the residents’ needs met within the confines of the development. Most residents are transplants from other parts of Chicagoland, with few ties in Des Plaines Valley—a fact that hurt the library in its referendum, which failed by 56%. Undaunted, Pointon is taking the library to the developments, building relationships one visit at a time. Without a bookmobile, librarians pack the trunks of their cars and set up minilibraries in the developments’ activity buildings. Pointon is counting on these residents’ votes when the library’s referendum returns to the ballot.

Libraries with referenda that passed built compelling arguments for the money that voters would spend on them. Details—such as the impact on taxpayers and where money would go—were clearly spelled out and then honed into key messages that could be recited simply and consistently. In Idaho’s Madison Library District, a calculator was included on the web site, and patrons could put in the assessed value of their property to learn exactly how much the bond would cost them. The library helped patrons visualize changes with a variety of cheap and cheerful tactics—a sign on the book drop that read, “If the bond passes, you won’t have to leave your car to return books,” and an old banner repurposed to read, “If the bond passes, this will be the Community Room.” The Smithtown Special Library District, NY, supported detailed public presentations on the district’s outdated libraries (none of which were Americans with Disabilities Act–compliant) with an informational DVD that explained the necessity for expanding and renovating the buildings. Multiple libraries reported hosting town hall meetings with presentations that demonstrated both needs and community benefits and also included Q&A with voters.

No matter how detailed the argument, it’s the wrong one if it doesn’t sync with voters’ desires. Respondents to LJ’s survey pinned a number of failed referenda on overly ambitious plans for which taxpayers refused to pony up. “[There was] excellent information about costs distributed to residents and businesses,” said one Illinois library of its $32 million bond request. “Interestingly, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification/energy conservation didn’t play well with the community—they were only interested in looking at initial cost, not long-term costs and environmental impact.”

Ballot measures need to be polished and tested long before they make their way to the polls. But there’s the rub: reliable research can be hard to obtain. Libraries with referenda that failed often tell of patron surveys that support renovation and building projects, only to discover support wasn’t genuine after the vote. From Funding to Awareness shows that it’s likely these libraries are asking the wrong people for feedback. That study found that frequent users are not necessarily supportive voters. In fact, there’s almost no correlation between a patron’s use of the library and his/her voting. Ironically, the most ardent advocates may never set foot in the building.

Libraries need to build plans in conjunction with the community and test them with those most influential in the vote. For example, the Fountaindale Public Library District, IL, inched its complex $48 million capital request to success with 51% of the ballot. The library focused its outreach on “frequent voters,” shaping its messages with these constituents in mind. The strategy pulled a win in an uphill battle that pitted one town against another.

Consistently, winning libraries reported alignment with councils and mayors as essential to victory. Jon Anderson, director of the Marian J. Mohr Memorial Library, Johnston, RI, attributes the passage of its referendum with more than 60% of the vote to the backing of local government. “Town officials were united in supporting this referendum, and many considered that communications from the mayor’s office, especially a detailed statement of taxpayer impact, were instrumental in our success,” he says. Elected officials are important opinion leaders—credible voices to voters—and winning their support means aligning the library with civic agendas. It may also mean a variety of compromises or even a change in direction. Those who find that hard to swallow need to remember that the public library is an agent of the government, not of librarians.

They’re engaged; they created detailed messages that demonstrate benefit to the audiences that matter; and, overwhelmingly, these winning libraries delivered their story through aggressive grass-roots campaigning. Stark County’s Linda Dahl, manager of public information, says, “Most effective was the time spent advocating for the library with voters at high school football games, PTA meetings, senior centers, the county fair, Rotary and Kiwanis meetings, and multiple other civic organizations.” While the library hired a professional political consultant to do initial research on local attitudes and to help determine the campaign’s direction, the library used the feedback from meetings to sharpen its messages. “The combined efforts of many people, library Board of Trustees, library staff, Friends of the Library, and multiple volunteers,” notes Dahl, “were instrumental in the passage of this levy effort.”

Cleveland PL’s win—with 65% of the vote—was earned door-to-door and person-to-person, says Lynne Roderick, the library’s planning and research assistant. “A campaign committee, 'Citizens for the Cleveland Public Library,’ mobilized volunteers to man phone banks, canvass neighborhoods, and distribute signs for homes and businesses.”

These efforts build momentum and reach far more potential supporters than simply passing out information in the library. Remember: library users aren’t necessarily library supporters at the polls.

Getting outside the walls of the library—as the Jackson District Library, MI, did—is essential. It is in an especially hard-hit area of this economically distressed state. The library had a 30-year track record of losing referenda but went to voters again in 2008 with an urgent story of impending branch closures and reduced staff systemwide. The library spent much of its $6000 in campaign contributions on unconventional, pink yard signs to build awareness of the referendum on the November ballot and then hit the road with the library’s message. “Branch staff made presentations at local government boards and parent/teacher associations, while administration staff met with countywide groups and service clubs. Both staff unions endorsed the ballot issue, and several patrons volunteered to write letters of support to the newspaper, which itself did not endorse our request,” says Director Ishwar Laxminarayan. “One staff member created a MySpace page, and many of our younger staff reached out to students at various college events to get the word out about our election. And, in the week before the election, a couple of our staff members created and mailed several hundred cards to remind movers and shakers in the community to vote on the proposal.” The ballot measure passed with 62% of the vote.

Voters in 2008 went to the polls against a backdrop of turmoil, yet they supported their libraries in a big way. But 2009 and beyond promises to be more challenging, and the lessons from winning libraries in 2008 create a compelling model. As the economy continues to sink, voters are likely to be a more demanding bunch. In the face of corporate bailout scandals, President Obama is setting new standards for transparency in how tax dollars are used. Librarians will be expected to prove effectively their need for new levies and bonds and then be accountable for how that money is dispersed. Frankly, we should demand no less of ourselves. We serve at the will of the people, and we should be grateful for the opportunity to prove that, when the chips are down, public libraries can be trusted to respect the support of its voters and deliver real value in return for tax dollars.