ChB:PhD

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. Trouble is, the times were not very evenly distributed. This is a story about two libraries – let’s call them library A and library B – and their destinies in the face of financial melt down.

Library A is a community library purpose built in the Thirties to meet the needs of a village that has grown steadily over the years with an influx of commuters. It offers a full range of services to the community including PC and wifi access to online services, a good quality bookstock and advice from trained staff. It has always been a popular and well-used service. In the past year the library has been threatened with closure in consequence of the international financial crisis. The community expressed collective disapproval of the proposal through letters, meetings and petitions.

And so to Library B. It is a community library purpose built in the Thirties to meet the needs of a village that has grown steadily over the years with an influx of second homeowners and summer tourists. It offers a full range of services to the community including PC and wifi access to online services, a good quality bookstock and advice from trained staff. It has always been a popular and well-used service. In the past year the library has been threatened with closure in consequence of the international financial crisis. The community expressed collective disapproval of the proposal through letters, meetings and petitions.

Let us turn to the responses of the two municipal authorities responsible for Libraries A and B. Library A, said the local council, would only remain open if a responsible agency within the community was prepared to come forward with a sustainable proposition based on volunteering. If an acceptable proposal was not forthcoming, the expectation is that the library will close. (This is an ongoing story and the final result will not be known for some months, but within the community there is no evidence that any ‘responsible agency’ will be identified.)

The council responsible for Library B received a petition and thought carefully about how the feelings of the community might be addressed through a sustainable solution that met the need for budget cuts. They decided that they could trust their community to use the library in a responsible way so they did the following: i) put in self issue and return; ii) checked that online services would provide advice and guidance to meet the general needs of users coming into the library iii) took all the staff away, apart from two hours each weekday when a librarian would attend to answer questions and ensure all the kit was working and the stock ship shape; iv) installed CCTV; and v) put a key pad lock on the front door so that visitors could come and go swiping their social security card plus entering their pin number.

Library B is now open 18 hours a day, seven days a week. The community is encouraged to use the library for meetings on a first-come basis, free of charge and un-superintended. For those who cannot get in or prefer to sit outside, the wifi has been ramped up and is available to absolutely anyone without the need for password. For the comfort of outdoors users the council has installed all-weather tables and chairs.

These are two very different reactions to the same problem. Which do you prefer? Do you wonder how two communities could be treated so differently? The simple answer is, of course that they are in different countries. Library A is my local library in the Home Counties while Library B is in Denmark, where the expanding ‘open library’ movement means that, as a result of financial constraints, libraries are open longer than before (some 24/7). Sound too good to be true? Well it is true and highlights just how different political and professional responses can be in two neighbouring European countries. My comparisons between the two libraries are not the result of objective analysis and it is quite possible that those advocating the continued importance of public libraries have explored this Danish model and decided it would not work here; maybe as I type there are UK authorities implementing the idea.

I have to admit that I have not read or heard anything to suggest the latter, although I assume others have connections in Denmark and are aware of what they are doing. The contrast raises both practical and professional questions that have yet to be answered. Would such a strategy work in the UK? Would local authorities be prepared to listen to such an option (trusting people to behave in the building and using the open wifi)? Would the community benefits outweigh the risks? Is the apparent balance of strategy between strong advocacy and searching for imaginative and practical solutions the right one? And so on.

The complimentary words I heard from library users on my recent visit to Denmark suggest that even talking seriously about ‘open libraries’ could bring a ray of sunshine into a generally gloomy landscape.