Tag Archives: Public

Share track: Minnesotans Not being Taxed Enough? AFSCME will take care of that…


Are “Fine Free” Public Libraries Really Better For the City of St Paul?

Up until the new year I was a fine-paying public library patron, as many people in St Paul were.  I paid my fines, it was painful, it didn’t seem fair, but I paid them. This was the case up until recently when St Paul Public Libraries went “fine free”.  The fines I paid over the years happened because had I forgotten or I didn’t have the time to turn in materials. Each time I thought: next time, I would remember to bring my materials in before they were overdue, given the opportunity.  I would change for the better from this lesson. However, there won’t be next time in St Paul, these fine events are something many people will no longer experience. And in being unable to accrue library fines in St Paul, I found out that lack of in-depth research and hopeful positive intentions are perhaps why it is that way.  Let me share with you some research on the topic and you decide on fines or no fines at the public library, what you learn through data from fines studies may surprise you, I was certainly surprised.

The St Paul Public Library’s “Fine Free” webpage asks the question: Why go fine free?”  and they answer: “It’s good for our community. Our community is stronger and healthier when people have access to the programs, services, and materials they need to pursue their educational, career, family, and life goals. We hope this will encourage prior users to come back to the library and attract new users to experience our offerings.”  All of these hopes and aspirations may have good intentions, but does ending fines and fees at the public library help our community? Does it make our community stronger and healthier? Does it allow for more programs, services, and materials that patrons need to pursue their educational, career, and life goals?  Let’s look at a few studies and find out.

On the St Paul Public Library’s (SPPL) website (https://sppl.org/about-fine-free/) it states that: “Late fines are not effective. Studies have shown that small fines have no impact on return rates. According to “Removing Barriers to Access,” a Colorado State Library whitepaper: “The scant research on the impact of library fines and fees does not indicate a clear benefit to administering these polices and may be costly to enforce.”  This line is directly taken from “Removing Barriers to Access” research which is not a peer reviewed journal, which ironically, provides many references to prove the ineffectiveness of fines while providing zero references on the effectiveness of fines and fees, further suggesting there is more than “scant research” and perhaps exposing an information bias.  

Moreover, SPPL’s “Fine Free” webpage cites this single study on the effectiveness of fines and fees, but there has to be more to the story than “scant research”.  Simply suggesting with a broad generalization that there is a lack of research on library fines does not prove that those fines are ineffective–or effective, especially when citing only one study.  This study proves that one side of the argument might show a result happened in this single study or other case studies under certain conditions, based on other studies with the same opinion, but fail to mention any benefits of fines and fees.  Nothing to change policy on, more information is needed, right?

In an attempt to retrieve more information I found the study SPPL offers is only one of at least a few studies on the topic; each with a somewhat different conclusion, making any decision on eliminating fines premature.   

A study at The Journal of Librarianship (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2013.08.011) shows the opposite may be true about eliminating fines: “The results indicate that fines indeed make a difference in patron book return behavior. Patrons who borrowed books under a fines policy returned books before due dates at a statistically significantly higher rate. As a result of this study, it is determined that a fines policy is an effective tool to ensure that books are returned on time and available to the maximum number of library users.”  The maximum number of library users sounds like a lot of people who would be positively impacted by fines and fees. This data being acknowledged, the debate over library fines is far from a conclusion.

Another interesting point related to financial resources is cited on SPPL’s website: “It’s fiscally responsible. Due to the rise in electronic materials (which do not accrue late fines) and other factors, fines are not a sustainable form of revenue for the library. Money collected from fines and fees has gone down steadily for the past 10 years.”, no source was cited with this information.  Yet, a study from Bowling Green State University, Fine Efficacy: An Experimental Study of the Effect of Daily Fines on Borrower Return Habits  (https://libguides.bgsu.edu/fine-research)  indicates that “eliminating fines caused a 33% decline in revenue generated, despite increasing reserve fines and billing fees to compensate for the loss of daily fine payments  They also saw a small increase in number of books that became overdue, even though loan periods had been extended.” This data is compelling considering modern libraries need all of the funding resources they can acquire to provide the valuable resources and services to our communities.

Now, I ask: to what end is SPPL eliminating fines and fees when there is counter-research that suggestsµ doing so could create a negative outcome?  To look good? Good intentions abound but there is lack of evidence that the practice of ending fines or making libraries “fine free” does anything to improve or expand the community readership, patron satisfaction, or even benefit those who no longer accrue fines at any income level.  What happens when patrons can no longer check out a book because it is drastically overdue or assumed lost, and that higher cost to cover a new book is not paid, what costs will the library incur to replace that material resource and have it sent out in a timely manner, if at all? These are some questions undiscussed, seemingly brushed over.  

When taking an assortment of library fines and fees studies into account, perhaps, it is safe to say that there is more research needed and necessary to responsibly change policy within public libraries, especially if it has the potential to decrease fiscal resources for library functions and increase the number of overdue books, essentially limiting those resources for fellow patrons.  Forgiving fines may remove a great lesson from our society, it may show that punctuality and holding to a plan, and having responsibility, is an outdated practice. But eliminating fines may prove beneficial, and create more access. Either way we must keep learning in order to understand the weight of decisions on such important institutions, both sides have plenty to check out.


The majority of readers at






Why I am not Voting


Recently, surprisingly (in lieu of what I’ve learned from American Literature 1, Henry David Thoreau, and Ralph Waldo Emerson), I have decided to take the opportunity (Nov. 4th , 2014) to not vote. I won’t be out on that blistery Tuesday eve checking boxes and rallying support, and wasting my fucking time. I will be sitting at home and reading books, or out-and-about gathering experience; smoking cigarettes, mindful of where I ash, in light of the fallen leaves, while enjoying an ice cold locally micro-brewed bier.

Everyone is telling me to vote, I won’t listen to their peer pressure anymore. Now I have Thoreau and Emerson on my side, let’s not forget Noam Chomsky. I will avoid being a statistic, a generalized agree-er. Example of not doing what everyone tells me to do: If everyone was telling me to jump off a bridge, likewise, I wouldn’t. So, I will do the same when it comes to voting, and I just won’t.

Reason for this change of heart, I present you with: Resistance to Civil Government (1849), Henry David Thoreau

The reason I will not be voting is simple. Because I notice things, I will not vote. Daily, while on campus, I notice people walking around. There are many people, but some stick out. They seem of a different ilk. They carry clipboards, propaganda, and they look occupied, busy (and slightly worried). They ask introductory questions with brevity, -and then they get right to the point. Their mind’s look in control, but not. They look poised, but it appears as though for someone else, besides themselves. They seem to be toiling in other people’s business. A business not so simple, a business sedimented in ideology, hope, change, and money; a façade of which the American public buys into. Tangible things, apparently; things we see on TV. Yet, we must take their word for it… Those pundits, politicians, and bi-pedal volunteers. Why study the facts when we can count on someone’s good name to guide our hand in voting… I know Al, I know the other guy; they seem nice, their ads are great; they have my vote… But what do we, as voters, understand?

Do we know where the money goes? Overseas, possibly? Do they know why the local public is withheld the opportunity to vote with its dollar? We can’t buy certain things on Sunday… I’ll give two examples:
1. Wars vs. Local Education; Al Franken, as the Senate Votes
2. Letter to the Government: Jerry Hertaus-What is your stance on Sunday Liquor Sales in Minnesota?

Has anyone discussed the importance of these minimally researched topics?
A few years back, I noticed an anomaly within my group of friends; a very close friend of mine, and confidant, chose not to vote. I’m not talking lazy-forget-to-vote, I’m talking just straight not voting. I didn’t understand. I badgered her for some time. I couldn’t believe it! I wanted her to get out and vote, as cliché as it sounds, I really did. That shit fucking counts: EVERY VOTE… I was lost and didn’t get it. Now I sort of do.

Read this: Wikipedia- Civil Disobedience (Thoreau)

Now watch this:

If one views the news, reads any local or national paper, delves into any media, one will notice a trend: people want you to vote for them. As if one person is better to lead, as if one person is actually leading, and not an organization, or worse a corporation; money. They want you to get out and tell them it is okay to do whatever they choose to do, even if those who voted for them don’t believe in what those politicians do after the vote.

Some local and national politicians just want to be talking faces, specifically noticed. They represent you, they are “good” people, probably born and breed in Minnesota, or wherever your hometown is, the similarities in locale. They want to be the next door neighbor who everyone knows, -but really doesn’t. Nothing gets changed, there is a need for necessary confusion, for necessary problems, to provide necessary solutions, with necessary money. Without these we wouldn’t need those, or them. They create a need. They need us to vote.

It is easy to vote for someone, even if you disagree with their beliefs, when everyone else does. But do you have the courage to not play their game?
Asch Conformity Test: