THE MUNICIPAL REFERENCE LIBRARY AS AN AID IN CITY ADMINISTRATION
It is a very real pleasure to meet with the American Library Association, and to convey in behalf of my colleagues in the administration of the City of New York, and in behalf of other colleagues in public business throughout the country, our hearty congratulations and possibly a friendly warning and a word of appeal.
Congratulations are due you for having established on so high a plane and in so short a time the profession of librarian. Especially are you to be congratulated for having welcomed the new profession of municipal reference librarian; for your adaptability in the constant extension of the reference work, and for the resiliency which is showing again in another field that real Father Williams never grow old. Could Benjamin Franklin look upon this gathering, and hear your reports of social service, through circulating, home, reference and municipal reference libraries, I am sure that no fruit of his patriotism would seem to him more promising than the recent application of the circulating library idea to government affairs.
My friendly warning has to do with your requests to fiscal bodies for appropriations. In many parts of the country, there is the feeling that the less the library has to do with public officials the better it is for the library, consequently, as a short cut, we find compulsory minimum appropriations—so many mills or so many parts of mills for library development. We also find that too many towns are satisfied with this compulsory minimum tax, and that the only time their fiscal representatives hear about libraries is just before the budget appropriations are voted. You must be indulgent with those who vote the money, if the outcome of this habit suggests the man who was exasperated by his wife, who he said "just nagged and nagged him for money, when he came, when he left, on Sunday, always." Finally, when a neighbor summoned the courage to ask, "What in the world does she do with all the money?" he, perforce, must answer; "Well, I don't know; you see I haven't given her any yet." Councils and Mayors will understand your library problem best if you will help them understand at those quieter seasons of the year when they are not harassed, as they are at budget time, by appeals from every other city department and for every other thing.
When presenting your budget, give the fiscal officer credit for wanting to know the whole truth, and for wanting reasons for giving you the money you request. Seldom will it help to ask for a great deal more than you need. Always, it will help not to present in a single total items that do not belong together. Classify your budget. State your program clearly. If all the money you want is not voted this year, stick clearly to the plan that has been voted, and show both the fiscal authorities and the town where your service has been crippled, if at all, for want of funds. It will be well to begin your budget campaign so that the first idea which the public and the fiscal officers get is that of the service you wish to render, rather than the money you wish to get. Most library budgets, like most other budgets of the United States, are apt to be put in without the explanatory matter which alone will make the dollar-and-cent facts show social reasons for library support.
Now for my appeal. In asking you to consider certain needs of public business, I want to speak quite frankly, as a city official who, like thousands of other city and county officials, must step into other people's business, with no time for getting acquainted with detail, and with a public to deal with that not only expects us on the first day we take office to use all the machinery of our predecessor and to get better results, but also really expects us to fail. We inherit a stack of mail. We are flooded with suggestions and complaints; many of them in confidence and most of them confusing. We are urged to attend club and church meetings, and dinners, and graduating exercises. We are expected, without any change in subordinate personnel, while giving our attention to large community problems and to the political aspects of public works, to get an efficient product out of our employees, no matter who they are or what they have been. In most places, we find no disinterested adviser, either on the inside or on the outside.
Such a situation would not necessarily be serious if we stepped into a thoroughly efficient organization where every employee and supervisor had his place, and where the institution as such had its "continuing memory." When Mr. Rea succeeded Mr. McCrea as president of the Pennsylvania Railroad, he inherited a splendid organization, every part related to another part; a system under which experts had tabulated within a moment's reach the successes and the failures of the Pennsylvania Railroad, and the costs of its various contracts, the difference between estimates and final costs, and an efficiency ranking both of its various employees and its stations. When the present administration in New York City stepped into office, we inherited an aggregation of departments and divisions then spending—if we count in installments and interest paid on the city debt—more than $160,000,000 for the expenses of a single year. There were ninety thousand employees. Side by side with one another were clerks paid one $600 and another $1,800 for the same kind of work; in another grade were clerks paid $1,600 and others paid $2,400 for the same kind of work. When salaries had been increased, and why, was not a matter of record. Supplies were contracted for by no standard form. Specifications, either for supplies or for construction work, were worded differently at different times, according to the individual wish or whim of the department officer preparing them. The public was but poorly protected at any point. Plans were made for new buildings, for new roads, and for other vast improvements, often without estimates of cost; often with assurances of only slight cost, where, too frequently, cost had been estimated as an entering wedge only. Thus a great city would stumble into an experiment or public improvement demanding millions of dollars, without ever reckoning the ultimate amount of its obligation. For example it may be fair in this presence to recall that the first bill for the New York public library carried with it an appropriation of $2,500,000. The city decided to spend this $2,500,000 and actually it spent $10,000,000. The New York public library is worth every dollar it cost, ten times over; I am merely emphasizing that the public should have had its eyes open and, in this case as in every other, should have known what it was doing. Although this same gap occurred over and over again—between estimate and actual cost—no steps were taken to recall the fact when each new amount was under consideration.
Ignorant as we have been of our own experience, still less informed have we been regarding the experience of neighbor cities. Some years ago, Denver, in operating its street railway, found it expedient to substitute electric motor power for the old cables. After Denver had discarded these cables, Baltimore adopted the cable. Rochester has recently adopted a device to attach drinking fountains to its ordinary fire hydrants. The idea is a new one, and may prove valuable. I say it merely by way of instance; but if it is a good idea, New York City and your city should adopt it. Each successive experiment of the sort should, at least, be brought promptly to the attention of public officials.
Again, New York City has worked out an improved system of accounting and budget making. The village of Dobb's Ferry, the cities of Duluth and Cincinnati have used an improvement upon New York's budget exhibits—recently called a new kind of "confidence game"—that is, taking the public into official confidence about the public's own business. Instead of waiting a generation for cities to adopt these new methods, their officials should promptly be given the facts they need.