ATTENDING MY FIRST "OUT OF TOWN" BOARD MEETING

As part of the Developing Healthy Board Relations module, I attended a meeting of the Ottawa Public Library Board last evening. Fortuitous choice as they were covering the wrap-up of the OPL Foundation (being integrated into a City-wide module), their technical trends projections as well as their collection management framework for the next three years, plus they were giving a sneak preview of the new Maker Space they will launch next week: 2 3D printers, 1 laser cutter and 3 loaded MACs for film editing and production which are already a great hit with the YAs who got to play with them during the trial. So much information to glean! As I quipped to one of their managers, it was like OLA in a day.

The meeting itself was quite smooth. The Chair, Municipal Councillor Jan Harder, efficiently controlled the journey through the agenda. Two of the board members were off-site and linked through telecommunication.  People discussed openly and respectfully. There seemed a positive relationship between the CEO and the Chair. For two incidences when issues were approached regarding staffing and staff relations,  I felt the Chair identified an uncomfortableness of the human resource manager in replying to a member’s question, and she stepped in stating that the issue will be noted and raised more appropriately while in camera.

There were no great bones of contention, except possibly during the in camera session at the end. There were a few votes taken and for which members seemed prepared.  With presentations, members were generous in their appreciation to staff that prepared and presented the work. Opportunities for questions were not rushed.

A number of times, the Library’s strategic plan and mission were brought forth especially in dealing with technological developments affecting collection management (print vs. e-books). All there were engaged and I believe each member spoke at least once. Members who also serve on City Council were active, some addressing needs in terms of their ward but always debating the issue for the greater good.

At the end, before moving in camera, the Chair asked if any other matter was up for discussion and, seeing none, asked the audience of about 8 to leave but to please remain until called so that they could conclude the meeting then visit the Maker Space.

My overall impression was a smoothly run meeting and a few technical glitches did not allow the meeting to be sidetracked. Everyone seemed prepared, some already had questions at hand and all had an opportunity to be heard. The Chair made an effort to have eye contact with all present, even with the audience. Presenters were treated respectfully. Discussions were to the point for the most part: one slight straying off the path in my opinion but as it was of short duration, I believed the Chair exercised patience rather than calling the speaker to order.

IN APPRECIATION

Not anything as far as assignments go. However I thought I do a "Shout out" thanks to Anne Maria Madziak, our course leader, for introducing me to TED Talks. I try to listen to one at least once a week and have had many fire me up and quite a number make me go "Wow! How do I make it happen here?" So, thanks!

OUT OF SEVERAL, 5 PRINCIPLES I CONSIDER CRUCIAL TO GOOD GOVERNANCE

I enjoyed the readings, the way one model emphasized a certain approach in comparison to another. Principles were the bedrock, though some were elevated higher in one model over another.  I have chosen these which I've synthesized from the various readings:

1. Relevance: The Board identifies and develops what is crucial to the Library's survival, especially in matters which determine its relevance and engage the community. They are the diplomats in getting the Library's message heard and establish the Library's credibility, especially with respect to City Hall and larger civic groups, to ensure adequate funding. 
2. Transparency and Accountability: In the deliberation and establishment of the above, there is a transparency in the decision process and an accountability to the key stakeholders: the community and municipal council.
3. Clarity: Clear roles are defined for the Board and the CEO,where the former monitors the efficiency of the CEO's execution of its vision and goals and the latter mentors the counsellors and assures their currency of information. Together, they maintain a mutual respect of their tandem duties and separate responsibilities.
4. Forward Thinking: They are constructive and progressive in addressing conflict, open and visionary in setting policies and goals, and flexible and creative in moving the Library forward, even and especially in difficult financial times.
5. Commitment: They engage a set of core values such as trust, teamwork and mutual respect, amongst others, encode these in their policies and collectively adhere to and direct all decisions and growth through these.

MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENT – THE LOCAL STORY

Clarence-Rockland reflects many other municipal governments in its hierarchical structure: council of elected representatives with a mayor at the head overseeing a city hall managed by a CAO. There are eight city councillors of which half represent the mostly rural towns that were joined to the larger, more urban town of Rockland in the 1998 amalgamation.

The various departments managed by the CAO follow most other municipalities, (by-law enforcement, financial services, human resources, infrastructure management, recreational and cultural management, etc.) The heads of these departments meet on a regular basis to assure that the needs of the community are being met and that the management of the city is following the plan laid out by the council.

The Library has its board with a president at its head. It is the publicly elected municipal council that selects the five member board which then selects from a president amongst themselves. A strong link is maintained with the City through the presence of two of the City’s councillors on the board.

The Library, like City Hall, has some discreet “departments” though the staffing levels are not as extensive, managed by a CEO. Often, it is one person handling a particular responsibility. These responsibilities follow most library profiles (circulation, cataloguing, tech services, programming and outreach, etc.) With the small size of staffing, some particular tasks are shared by all, notably circulation and readers’ advisory. Staff do not meet on a regular basis but communication is both formal (e-mails, directives and occasional all day developmental meetings) to ensurer that goals and objectives established by the board are achieved.

The city council is formed by the will of the people whereas the library board is formed by the will of the council.

The Library has had an awkward fit into the City’s structure. Principally, it came done to the Library’s identity within the community. It was and continues to be the Library’s responsibility in advocating its importance. And this had not happened successfully in the past. It has lacked focus and strength to become an essential service. It has relied upon old practices (i.e., lending books) and poorly executing other projects to attend to community needs.

The consequences of such action has been little capital investment from the City (when compared to other municipalities of similar size), an underground network of friends supplying each other with reading material because book budgets could not answer demand, and a more superficial view of a library’s worth.

The improvement in “fitting in” the community has been internal:

·         staff restructuring: assigning specific tasks to a specific post and hiring/matching qualified staff;
·         repositioning our place in the communit: children’s programming, purchasing material based on patron’s requests;

and external:

·         change of ideas at City Hall: hiring of key people in the financial department and in the CAO who affirm the greater role of a Library in the community.

Having this internal support at the City level, re-branding the Library and producing programmes such as the TD Summer Reading Club which went from around 60 kids in 2012 to over 130 in 2013 has helped City Council change their view of the Library as a “department,” and a fairly small one at that, to an independent, independently managed and responsibly operated community service which they feel more prepared to support.