HAVERHILL LIBRARIES AND THE LAW

A Haverhill Library Fix

Library Revenues

Four villages in Haverhill have libraries, which operate independently of town government and each other. These vastly under-funded and out-dated libraries, which serve probably no more than about 5% of the community regularly and have never served more than about 15% of the community are among the very worst in New Hampshire. They are not suited to provide the type of 21st century service that citizens have a reasonable right to expect in a town of Haverhill's size. The present boards of trustees who lack knowledge of library administration and skills in public relations are the principle obstacle to improving the libraries. Citizens unaware that much better library services can be within their easy grasp, if they demand them, passively endorse the existing library situation.

A state library report shows that Haverhill library funding is only about 40% of the state average for libraries in towns of near the same population. Splitting the library funds into four parts leaves each library with only 1/10th the potential capacity of the average of these libraries. In 2005, total operating revenue of the four Haverhill libraries ranked 46th out of 54 libraries in towns of Haverhill's population category. Haverhill's per capita expenditures of $13.74 were less than 1/3 of Littleton's $47 and less than half the state average. This is not the adequate funding that state law requires. The number of visits to libraries in Haverhill was only about 23% of the average of those towns closest to Haverhill's size. Circulation figures of each exceeded Haverhill's. Their average was almost double.

The libraries operate at a low funding level by hiring unqualified people and reducing services. They keep less than half the normal library hours and occupy congested, poorly equipped and inconvenient space. They have not computerized and have not refreshed librarian and trustee knowledge. They serve only about 5% of the people, while other libraries serve 50%.

The only library in Haverhill that claims to have adequate funding is the Woodsville library, whose treasurer, Dale Kendall, announced at a trustee meeting that the library had all the money it needed and did not want any more. Woodsville trustees claim that the library does well with the money it has. This is not convincing. It does not do well at all and is unwilling to evaluate its performance or admit deficiencies, though it seems to be about the worst library in the state. Haverhill libraries have refused grant and endowment money because they do not want stipulations attached.

Antiquated Values in Haverhill Libraries

Computers have begun to play a major role in reference work, which is just about the most important service that a library can offer today. In the last 30 years, virtually every library in New Hampshire has automated its operations, it can make a library into an information center, which modern libraries in the nation have become. Haverhill trustees, who are hardly aware of the concept, have not automated at all. They only lend books, an area in which they have a very poor performance record. The North Haverhill library did not want a computer until the select board decided to delete any increases in its budget because it did not have one. It since then has reluctantly acquired a computer.

The Woodsville Library has one computer for use of the librarian and one for public use. It needs two more but the trustees, honoring their librarian's wishes, do not want more.

The value that Haverhill librarians attach to walk-to libraries does not hold water. While Haverhill has more libraries than any other town in its population category, it ranks at rock bottom for library visits. Each village has a noteworthy heritage that village libraries can promote but which they have little interest in doing. North Haverhill ranks at the top in agriculture in the state, but its library has no agricultural materials. Neither does it have information about Governor or Frances Parkinson Keyes, two notables who lived in North Haverhill. The Pike library has nothing on whetstone production or information about the private schools in East Haverhill, which are a highly important part of the library service area. The Woodsville library has nothing on the railroad, which was the reason for the village's being. Researching village character or history in these libraries is fruitless.

The Haverhill libraries submit very perfunctory financial reports for inclusion in annual town reports. They say nothing of financial needs to fix problems, of whose existence they seem unaware. Their silence breeds public indifference, which is essentially the outlook of the trustees.

Libraries have ample space but badly manage it. They use a large amount of space and librarian time for book sales that do not anywhere near compensate for the value of the space or the librarian's salary. Replacement cost for book sale space might be $100,000 at Haverhill Corner and $250,000 at Woodsville. This space could rent for $10,000 to $15,000 each year at each library. The Woodsville librarian reported that the downstairs was not used because the stairs were unsafe. Yet the trustees have done nothing about fixing the stairs and have refused money for it. They claim to have enough money and do not want any more. High congestion in client-used space in this library creates a deplorable appearance, the most undignified I have seen in any library. It has no space, quiet spots, or equipment to facilitate reading or writing. The trustees, quite satisfied with the space, quickly adjourned the meeting when I tried to discuss it.

Law, Standards, and Ethics

By law, any town having a public library must elect a board of trustees at town meeting and annually appropriate a sum sufficient to maintain adequate public library service. The four Haverhill libraries fit the legal definition of a public library but operate as private groups, which by law they are not. The town makes "donations" to the libraries, which supposedly, but doubtfully, lets it off the hook of fiduciary responsibility.

The town of Haverhill has never established a library, including adopting one by vote at town meeting. It asks no questions and conducts no audits. Although the law calls for the town to elect a board of trustees, it has never done it. The boards of each library appoint the trustees, except for one at each library, which the voters of the town elect. Electing one person does not constitute electing a board or effect much influence. This system, which ensures perpetuation in office, has led to bad results.

The state legislature in 1891 directed that towns support libraries but only if voters approved a library at town meeting. Voters approved in 1898. They chose three trustees and voted an appropriation for a free town library. However, the trustees of the existing libraries continued to function and relinquished no authority to the three town trustees or to the town. In a bizarre case of social lethargy, the town still elects the three functionless town trustees. This system becomes nothing more than a chance for the so-called town trustees to tout being town officials. We need to abolish this senseless, outmoded practice, which is an obstruction to citizen involvement with the libraries.

Since the state does not promulgate library regulations or inspect libraries, the libraries can ignore changes in the law as long as no one raises a legal challenge. The most egregious of the irregular, questionably legal practices is the way in which trustees perpetuate themselves in office. Citizens have nothing to say about it and have no opportunity to enter the closed and evasive cliquish system.

The Public Library Association lists 13 service goals for libraries. Haverhill libraries offer only a limited aspect of one service. This service, known as Current Topics and Titles, includes book lending. Haverhill libraries have not considered any of the other 12 services, which include career guidance, basic literacy, and community information. Considering the village size, the Woodsville library could operate many of the 13 services, but this badly managed squeeze-thru library has no space and no interest. It plans none of them and requests no money for them. None of the four libraries advocates community support, defends freedom of inquiry, analyzes community needs, makes long-range plans, or carries out any other aspects of the 13 services except for the lending service mentioned, which it does in a very limited way.

The state library has drawn up standards for three levels of library operation related to becoming a part of the Statewide Library Development System. The four libraries, forced to share resources, cannot afford to come close to even the lowest level stated in the standards, and have no intentions of meeting the standards or making any other improvements. Among other things, the standards call for a librarian with a master's degree and annual training for librarian and trustees. No librarians in Haverhill meet these requirements.

Libraries normally have a policy that relates to intellectual freedom, freedom to read, acceptance of gifts, customer service, reference service, safety, disasters, technology, and investments. Haverhill libraries have no such policies. The State Library issued a code of ethics that included observing provisions of the Right-To-Know Law, ensuring all meetings are open to the public with certain narrow exceptions, and opening all records to the public (including discussions and support materials). The Haverhill Corner library went to court to protect itself from the right-to-know law.

The code of ethics speaks against using E-mails and phone calls to substitute for assembling a quorum of the board. No one on the board should assume authority for the board unless the board delegates it to him. Individual trustees in Haverhill ad lib policies at their meetings. Trustees are expected to study library law and to undergo periodic training. Haverhill trustees take no training at all. They have refused it. When the Woodsville library trustees were asked what books they had read on library science no one responded.

The Public Library Association approved an ethics statement in 1989 asking that trustees disqualify themselves in conflict of interest situations. Frances Krauss told me at a trustee meeting that I had written in my books some things she did not like about a friend of "ours" as a reason for not accepting my offer of an endowment of $50,000. She should have disqualified herself. These trustees seem to have no idea of library ethics or public interest. The North Haverhill librarian said, “I know how to run a library; I don’t need a code of ethics.”

According to the ethics statement, trustees must resist librarians censoring materials. They should not bar writings on the basis of personal history or politics of the author. The North Haverhill librarian, Marilyn Spooner, told me, "I don't want any of your books in my library." The Haverhill Corner Library apparently threw out books that I had authored and donated. It also apparently threw out several books that I gave it to distribute to citizens without charge; the librarian refused to accept anymore books and gave no reason. The trustees turned down a potential grant of $30,000 and an endowment of $50,000 because it disapproved of information in books I authored but it would not state reasons.

A community's commons, a normal library function, refers to a central organization, particularly a library, that fosters the exchange of ideas in the community. It directs efforts to improve the community by bringing community and library together. Haverhill libraries do not relate to the idea. They do not even provide a forum for discussing their own needs, plans or budgets. They have no available meeting places, since they use space, which could be used for meetings, to store books for sale.

The Woodsville Library has declared its downstairs space unavailable because the stairs are unsafe, though it has not fixed them or asked for money to do it. It uses the space to sell books, however. The trustees are not interested in providing meeting space and adjourned a meeting rather than discuss it.

Probably no library trustees in Haverhill look on their library as a means of extending education, a basic goal of libraries. Haverhill libraries are not the laboratories of ideas or places where information is exchanged, which library experts call for. Presenting ideas to the Woodsville library board brings on a reaction such as Dale Kendall's, "I've heard enough; I move we adjourn the meeting" or a reaction such as that of Dick Woodside at the Haverhill Corner library whose response to a suggestion was silence at the meeting but later brought an angry and muddled telephone call.

The North Haverhill librarian, Marilyn Spooner, said "I don't want any of your books in my library." Susan Brown, a town trustee, said, "You are not on the committee and you will have nothing to say about what the committee does" and "I am the chair of the committee and no one else will set the agenda." These responses hardly provide the environment for laboratories of ideas, commons, or public participation.

When Haverhill libraries started out, prominent and learned public figures became trustees. Among them were Charles Johnston, Governor John Page, Governor Henry Keyes, Frances Parkinson Keyes, William Whitcher, Fred W. Bittinger, and Oliver D. Eastman. Thus two governors and an internationally known author have been Haverhill library trustees. Today it is hard to picture prominent people wanting to serve on a library board whose members are non-inquisitive, barely literate, have no long-range views, engage in details best left to the librarian, shun engagement with the public or other libraries, develop no understanding of library science, and censor books.

Generally, a governing body appoints library trustees, or voters select them in public elections. In Haverhill, boards of trustees appoint the trustees (usually their friends), and reappoint each other (their friends) with no thought as to the type of skills that library administration needs. The boards become such perpetual tight little cliques that they operate in a vacuum and gain no new ideas. Despite state law, they hold un-posted meetings out of fear of disruptions. They make decisions by unethical poling of members. Woodsville trustee Carole Kendall said about a recent secret meeting, "The trustees wanted to talk among themselves." They treasure hearing from themselves more than from the public.

Most library surveys look for what's wrong and what to do about it. The very recent Haverhill Corner Library survey had no expert input. It sought no responses that could deal with possible improvements, relevancy or adequacy of its collection, or the type of materials or information that people in the community might use. It sought nothing related to the library's education function, or basic services that the Public Library Association has recommended, and nothing related to ethics, censorship, or citizen participation, all areas in which the library performs badly but apparently with no inkling of how badly.

The library trustees met in secret to design a survey to get answers that the trustees wanted, which was to prove that they were doing a good job. They quickly announced to the public that their library was satisfactory before they even thought of how to use the results (which evidently they did not plan to do). The library has not placed the survey materials in the library for public viewing and resists giving out information about the survey.

The Woodsville trustees discuss nothing related to oversight, perspective, and public interface. They move at a leisurely pace until the public input session begins at which all responses are hostile. Chair Krauss begins to nervously watch the clock and say they do not have much time and retorts with sarcastic and caustic questions such as "What's your point?" "What's next?" or "We don't have time." The trustees endorsed the librarian who said, "If you are not satisfied with the library, stay away." Krauss very aptly stated a library policy when she said that the trustees do not want to hear from anyone who does not use the library, and they implement the policy enthusiastically, which is about the only thing they do enthusiastically with public participants.

The minutes of Woodsville trustee meetings do not attribute statements at meetings to specific members. Carole Kendall, the recorder of the Woodsville trustees, said she could not keep minutes because everyone was talking at once and she did not know what they were saying. (She apparently came to her own conclusions.) This statement and her tendency to doctor up the minutes are disingenuous. It also speaks poorly of Krauss's ability to keep order in the meetings or of the integrity of trustees who never object to the chaos or question fallacious minutes. Krauss said at a meeting that no one else has complained about the library. This is remarkable when we can see from data in a state library report that the Woodsville library is just about the worst in the state. That they do not accept complaints graciously may have much to do with their not getting any.

The 90% or more people who stay away from the Haverhill libraries need to know that they will not get good library service if they are unwilling to speak up. Otherwise, the present library policy, that the Woodsville librarian so clearly stated, will prevail. "If you are not satisfied with the library, stay away."

Trustees choose the other trustees but not for their skills in public advocacy or library or leadership skills but rather for friendship with someone on the board. They are either unwilling or unable to initiate fund drives. Their shunning public engagement and publicity is not conducive to improving service to the public. Like the Haverhill Corner library, they prefer to report public satisfaction rather than deal with sub-standard performance or develop the skills needed to advocate public support.

Evaluation

No one, including the boards of trustees, has ever fully evaluated or studied the libraries, or collected or organized facts about them to pinpoint their defects. The Haverhill planning board did not address libraries in its 2006 town plan survey because, as its chair stated, the board had no expectation of being able to use the results. It evidently saw no reason why anyone including the libraries would use the information, since no one had ever used library statistics before for any purpose. Besides, the libraries did not see any reason to plan anything different since they convince themselves, as the Haverhill Corner library does, that they are doing a fine job.

Tom Ladd of the state library has not conducted a formal evaluation of the libraries because they have not invited him to do it and do not want him to do one. However, from his numerous contacts with them, he has been able to make observations and list numerous sub-standard areas as follows:

1. The Woodsville library has only one computer for public use. The North Haverhill library has none. (He did not address the computer situation in the Haverhill Corner or Pike libraries.) Although today's libraries have mostly computerized their catalogs, no Haverhill libraries have done it.
2. No librarian in Haverhill has taken the necessary training to have access to the State Library Provided Data Base.
3. No Haverhill librarians or trustees are receiving any kind of continuing education.
4. Librarians are either not interacting with each other or their interaction is not working out well. They do not arrange cooperative buying to take advantage of discounts or to reduce duplicate purchases that interlibrary exchanges can eliminate.
5. People are not using the libraries to acquire information. They go to borrow reading material but not to search for information to use in study or research.
6. The libraries lack space for adult programming, i. e. meeting rooms in which learning groups can meet. The libraries have poor physical access to points within the library because of congestion. [End of Ladd commentary.]

The libraries, disinterested in what he has to say, have refused to invite him for consultations. While the state library can do much to talk libraries into making improvements, it couches its pollyannish observations in such innocuous terms that library trustees believe they are being praised.

A Remedy

To remedy the library failures, I will pay costs of up $100,000 to start up high quality library services at one facility governed by a board of trustees all elected at town meeting. Once a board of trustees is in office and develops a plan, and library experts review the plan, I can make available up to $400,000 more. I will also endow a program to evaluate the library annually, to make periodic improvements and to nominate qualified trustee candidates. None of the money will go to present libraries.

Quite apart from the $100,000 grant that I have promised to start up a town-established library, I plan to set up a Haverhill Library Endowment Fund of $100,000. A board of trustees or a trust company, independent of the library trustees and the selectboard, will administer the endowment. It will arrange to have well qualified people nominated to fill trustee vacancies in order to increase the likelihood of qualified candidates running for office. The endowment will also pay for independent evaluations of the libraries and for periodic improvements.

The selectboard assembled library trustees at a meeting to deal with my proposal and to volunteer for a committee to study it. With no questions asked, it appointed a committee that was dominated by trustees trying to protect their libraries. The chair, Susan Brown, told me at a committee meeting, with committee endorsement, "You are not on the committee and you will not have anything to say about what the committee does." She also said that only she would set the agenda. I declined to attend any more meetings. She intended to integrate my proposal with her plan for the four libraries. I told the board that I would not fund a library that would be integrated with the existing system. The library would have to be independent of any other library to avoid having existing non-responsive libraries dilute its effect by perpetuating the same sub-standard services. Selectboard chair Rick Ladd told the committee that the board disbanded the committee because reimbursements made my proposal unacceptable. The selectboard had said nothing about reimbursement or anything about my proposal being unacceptable. And it is not involve reimbursements.

THE NORTH HAVERHILL LIBRARY

The North Haverhill Library made its anti-community stance known. When the Grafton County Superior Court heard a case against the Haverhill Corner library for violation of the right-to-know law, each of the libraries in Haverhill had representatives in court to show solidarity with the Haverhill Corner library. Their attorney introduced each one of them to the judge. North Haverhill had its representative there to indicate that it supports keeping information from the public.

OBSERVATIONS OF THE NORTH HAVERHILL

Robert G. Fillion

On May 8, 2008, I submitted to the North Haverhill Library trustees a report of my observations about the North Haverhill library and told them I wanted to hear their response to observations before publishing a report on the library. The trustees made it clear that they did not want to respond to complaints and did not even have the politeness to inform me that would not consider any of my observations. This library, which is the most deplorable library in the state, with the possible exception of the Pike library, does not want criticism or citizen comments or involvement. They apparently believe that all library wisdom resides in them and will only move when forced to.

I reported that this library has no programs, does not evaluate or plan services or improvements, neglects reporting, lacks skilled trustees and staff, has no stated policies or code of ethics, has no community information or involvement, has no catalog and no computer, provides no reference service, and lacks appropriate furniture and other amenities. A full report states how I arrived at my conclusions. Here is a more concise list of 46 deficiencies that I reported to them. They offered no evidence that the observations were incorrect.

1. The vast majority of North Haverhill people do not use the library.
2. The library has no clear purpose.
3. It has no programs.
4. It does not offer any of the 13 standard library services.
5. Funding is insufficient to provide adequate services.
6. The library has not requested or defended a sufficient funding level.
7. It has rejected grants.
8. It has done no long-range planning.
9. It has not planned improvements.
10. Trustees do not evaluate librarian performance.
11. No one has ever audited or evaluated the library.
12. Trustees are not elected, but are appointed by the trustees.
13. They do not select trustee candidates with library knowledge.
14. They do not publicly recruit candidates for trustee jobs.
15. They do not announce trustee vacancies to the public.
16. They do not publicize or publicly advocate and explain the library.
17. Trustees do not meet regularly.
18. The library does not report its activities or status to the community.
19. Its reports to the state library are inappropriate and probably false.
20. Trustees lack library knowledge.
21. The library does not have or make use of a qualified librarian.
22. Staff lacks skills.
23. Staff is impolite and uncooperative.
24. The library does not stock literature or guidelines on library science.
25. It does not provide training for staff or trustees.
26. It does not use experts to improve the library.
27. It does not collaborate with other libraries or community resources.
28. It does not provide services at the senior citizen center, jail, school, or nursing home.
29. It does not participate in the Statewide Library Development Program.
30. It does not participate in the interlibrary loan program.
31. It does not participate in developing the town plan.
32. It does not acquire information on community expectations of the library.
33. It does not have a policy manual or collection of written policies.
34. It does not have a code of ethics.
35. The staff violates ethical practices that libraries normally follow.
36. The library censors books.
37. It does not keep a copy of the by-laws in the library.
38. Its services are expensive.
39. It lacks a catalog.
40. It lacks computers.
41. It lacks quiet reading space.
42. It lacks amenities (furniture, space, etc.) for study and research.
43. It does not provide reference services.
44. Cards in the books show the names of borrowers.
45. Long unread books remain on the shelves.
46. Shelving of books is disorderly.