Page 127 - DLIS003_LIBRARY ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT

Library Administration and Management

Notes
Jerry Brown announced a mid-year adjustment that eliminates all remaining funding for
these programs. His first budget for 2012–2013 continues to eliminate all funding for
public library programs and makes a $1.1 million cut to the State Library administration
budget to reflect a decrease in anticipated administrative workload resulting from the
previous year’s cuts. (Meanwhile, Los Angeles voters approved a ballot initiative that
increases dedicated spending for the Los Angeles Public Library system by $50 million
over the next few years without raising taxes.)
Texas lived up to its reputation for doing things on a grand scale, cutting state funding for
the Texas State Library and Archives Commission by 64 % and funding for the agency’s
library programs by 88 %. The overall state library budget will shrink from $19.8 million
each year of the two-year budget to $7.2 million, while support for programs will go from
$12.8 million to $1.6 million. The Library Development and Library Resource Sharing
divisions are to be merged into a single division.

Source: http://www.ala.org/news/mediapresscenter/americaslibraries/soal2012/public-libraries
7.2 Types of Budgeting

Every library, no matter how small, has to operate with a budget. In most libraries, the librarian
and his senior staff prepare the budget, according to budgetary norms issued by the authorities.
The budget is scrutinized, vetted, if necessary, and approved by the Library Executive Committee
before it is sent to the higher authorities for final approval and sanction. The general practice is
to follow the methods and procedures of the parent organization. If they are special service of a
comparatively limited scope, some small special libraries may be exempted from the preparation
of a detailed budget. There are some methods of budgeting for preparing library budgets which
include traditional ones practised by many libraries and the more innovative ones that have, in
recent years, found their way into libraries. These budgetary methods are discussed below:
1. Line Item or Incremental or Historical or Object-of-Expenditure Type Budgeting: Probably
the most common type of budget is the one that divides items of expenditure, line-by-line,
into broad categories such as books and journals, salaries and allowances, equipment,
supplies, capital expenditure, contingencies, etc. with further subdivisions for each of
these broad categories. This is the usual traditional method which, by taking into account
past expenditure on each item, prepares the current budget, hence called historical
budgeting. The budget is prepared with a small increase of say 5 or 10 per cent for each
major item of expenditure of the previous year’s allocation, assuming that all current
programmes are as good and necessary.
The advantage of this method of budgeting is that it is relatively easy to prepare, present
and understand. To some extent it ensures that the funds provided are spent for the purpose
stated. It is extensively practised. But it has certain weaknesses. This method does not
suggest any future projections. It does not necessarily involve any review as to what
amount ought to be spent in terms of activities and services. Secondly, it moves in the
same manner as in the past year, without any forward push. Thirdly, this tends to ossify
and rigidify the budget. In other words, budget funds earmarked for a particular item
cannot be spent for any other purpose i.e., the financial rules would not permit the shifting
of expenditure from one head to another. For instance, funds allotted for equipment, if
unspent, cannot be shifted to acquisition of a few important titles of current journals even
if fully justified. It emphasizes tools rather than what these tools have to achieve. It also
has a tendency to tempt to disguise needs and ask for more money than needed. Above all,
it lacks a forward look and not provides accountability for performance.

122 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY