THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES SATURDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1949. THE PUBLIC LIBRARY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 27212, 15 October 1949, Page 6

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES SATURDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1949. THE PUBLIC LIBRARY

Correspondence which has appeared in our columns on the Public Library denotes a measure of dissatisfaction with this institution. The criticism falls principally under two headings, the high administrative costs and the operations of the rental section. Criticism of this latter item is somewhat futile. The operations of this section show a small profit—-or more correctly, a small excess of revenue over expenditure—and while the selection of books available in it is poor and inadequate its existence may bring people to the library who otherwise would not go there. The cost of administration is demonstrably high —on figures supplied by the Town Clerk, £11,241 in salaries this year. The ratepayers of Dunedin must be markedly aware, when they receive their rating demands, that the library is not, in any comprehensive sense, “ free that it has become an appreciable factor in their financial obligations as citizens. The library rate, which was 2d in 1947-48, and 2|d in the current year, will reach its maximum of 3d in 1949-50. It is to be noted that, in addition to the revenue derived from this rate, £13,064 in 1947-48, the Public Library customarily receives supplementary assistance, which was 'estimated at £ 1830 -for 1947-48 (£2060 being spent) and it has certain revenues, derived from fines and profit on rental books, amounting to about £IOOO a year. The actual expenditure in 1947-48, the latest year for which figures can be ascertained, was £15,543, of which £B2 is itemised for special shelving and £ 15,371 as expenditure on “Books, etc. 1 ’ Since in fact the item “etc.” comprehends something over £II,OOO in wages, it is seen that the actual position is (including materials, alterations, etc., supplementary grant of £2060 and revenue from fines, etc., as expenditure on books) approximately as under:

Cost of books .. .. 7,190 Cost of staff .... 11,241 There is here, surely, a striking disproportion in cost between what may be .described as the capital of the Public Library and of the staff that is employed in administering it. Citizens of Dunedin should not be hasty in criticising the Public Library, for it is a very excellent library; and they should be perhaus more guarded than some of our correspondents in suggesting that it is over-staffed, for a complex and comprehensive system of information and other services is provided, the nature of which is indicated in the librarian’s report that more than 18,000 recorded questions were answered through the reference service in 1947-48. Incidentally, it may be observed that while wages are high and rising, the librarian’s salary remains at a surprisingly meagre figure. The position of the city’s finances is, howeyer, that economy must be the civic watchword; rating is so high that the citizens are entitled to expect the City Council to exercise the most careful vigilance over expenditures. It becomes a question, therefore, whether the Public Library is not rendering, through its administrative staff and accessory services, a service in excess of the reasonable requirements; whether, in other words, administrative economies should not be introduced. The City Council would surely be justified in examining the position of the library from this viewpoint. '

THE MEAT BOARD

Although the general policy of the Meat Producers’ Board in fostering the development of New Zealandowned freezing works was upheld in both the report/and the debate on the Southland freezing works proposal, the board did not emerge from the controversy entirely without criticism. The Agricultural and Pastoral Committee of the House of Representatives considered that 'some of the causes of dissatisfaction “ could have been remedied earlier by the Meat Board had it exercised its potential authority ,to a greater extent,” and this censure was reiterated by the chairman of the committee in the course of the debate. Mr Herron (Awarua) considered that “the Meat Board had not handled the position ,at all well.” He felt the time had come when there should be a different system of electing the board so that it had a much closer relationship with the producers. In this latter sentence Mr Herron appears to have disclosed a real source of grievance, for in recent years there has been, in the opinion of many farmers, far too much ignorance among producers of the operations of the board. This is a charge from which the Meat Board cannot be completely absolved, in spite of the very good defence it could advance. In the first place the board could argue that a great many farmers exhibited a singular apathy to all discussions of questions of policy, and meetings throughout New Zealand at which members of the board have spoken have not been conspicuously well attended. There is to be considered, moreover, the incontrovertible fact that the board, in attempting tb maintain its authority since bulk buying was instituted in 1939, has been forced to contend unremittingly with a Government notoriously unsympathetic to the farming community, a Government that insists on negotiating with producer organisations behind locked doors. These methods have had unfortunate repercussions throughout the farming industry. Four years ago tire Meat and Dairy Boards fought strenuously to • obtain for New Zealand farmers the so-called “ stabilisation ” payments made by the British Ministry of Food, payments to which all farmers considered they were« entitled. Eventually, after conferences' of which no public report was released, both boards' surrendered their claims, but their opposition since to the system of bulk purchase has been a clear indication of their real views on the subject. Farmers are still dissatisfied with this deal; just as they are dissatisfied with the country quota gerrymander, and the failure of the Meat Board to secure from the Government the full return for their tallow, hides

and pelts. Some of this indignation is directed by meat producers against the Meat Board as indiscriminately as dairy producers reproach the Dairy Board or the Marketing Commission. The board could, and should, escape the greater part of this frequently unintelligent disapprobation by making particular exertion to inform producers of its activities and the progress of its negotiations.