Survey Process

To provide information about other state library association’s government relations activities, the Task Force surveyed the fifty states. The process included these steps:

1. Query posted to all 50 state librarians asking if their state association had a paid lobbyist (August 2002)

Initial informal survey results were used to design a web-based form to be completed by state librarians or association representatives in states with paid association lobbyists (October 2002).
Follow-up requests to complete the survey sent to the states that reported having a lobbyist (November 2002)
Results reviewed by task force members in order to prepare the Task Force recommendations to the full NCLA Board (November-December 2002).

Informal Survey Results

The initial query and follow-up requests revealed that, of the 45 states responding, twenty-nine (64%) had lobbyists and 10 (22%) did not. Five other states have had a lobbyist in the past or are considering it now. Hawaii has a single public library system, and the State Librarian is the director of the system, which includes being the lobbyist for the system with the legislature. The summary of the results with some additional comments is Attachment A.

Formal Survey Results

Of the states responding to the original survey, representatives from 20 states completed the online survey (at least two responses came from states that have had lobbyists but do not have one at the moment). Respondents included eight state librarians and twelve association representatives (8 staff and 4 officers or committee chairs).

Attachment B is the survey form with a summary of responses to each question in italics.The survey asked a series of questions about the:

§ Lobbyist: cost, services, whether they hire a firm or individual, processes for setting priorities and reporting, level of satisfaction.

§ Association: number of members, budget, tax status, management process.

§ Legislature: length of sessions & number of members.

Attachment C provides examples of some of the comments from various state librarians about their individual experiences with Association lobbyists. Attachment D is a recent evaluation of the Illinois Library Association’s lobbying efforts, which provides some insight into the level of work and activity required by Association representatives, staff, and members as well as the lobbyist. It also provides some insight into one state’s processes.

Task Force Observations

Here is a summary of the Task Force’s impressions from these documents:

§ The investment that each association makes varies widely, with no discernible pattern in relationship to the size or budget of the association. The Texas Library Association is one of the larger, wealthier associations, and TLA clearly believes that their government relations activities are a high priority based on its investment. But the Colorado Library Association invests $55,000, $61 per member and 24% of its entire budget, in order to hire two lobbyists—one Republican and one Democrat. The Alaska Library Association, which did not respond to the full survey, has 300 members and pays their lobbyist $19,000 each year.[1]

§ The respondents report that their Association Boards tend to be very supportive of the effort, and their evaluation of the effectiveness of the lobbyists indicates satisfaction with the results.

§ Both the formal survey results and the comments indicate that the Association’s leadership, the legislation committee, and individual members must invest not only money but also effort to assure that the process is successful.

Attachments:

A – Informal Survey Results

B – Formal Survey Results

C – Comments

D - Illinois Library Association Report

[1] Both TLA and CLA have political action committees that contribute to candidate campaigns.