Despite the grim economic circumstances in 2009, voters delivered an overwhelming vote of confidence to their local libraries. In fact, 84 percent of all operating referenda passed nationwide.

Just a few of the successes: in Michigan, where the unemployment rate leads the nation, Cass City's Rawson Memorial District Library's annual operating referendum was passed by an extraordinary 89 percent. In Connecticut, the citizens of Bridgeport approved the state's first-ever operating referendum specific to the library, and supporters outnumbered the opposition by a margin of two to one.

And while building referenda presented a tougher battle, nearly 54 percent passed, including a $17 million bond for the Snake River School District and Community Library in Blackfoot, ID, which topped the charts in size of winning appeals last year.

For libraries, the impact of the derailed economy was felt more fully in 2009 than in 2008, as tax revenues decreased and public funds dwindled. By February 2009, the American Library Association (ALA) reported from a survey of its Chief Officers of State Library Agencies (COSLA) that 41 percent of states expected declining state funding for public libraries, with South Carolina and Florida particularly hard-hit. By July, Ohio's public libraries, top ranked in the United States for per capita state funding, faced a devastating cut of nearly 20 percent. Within six weeks of that announcement, 30-plus Ohio library districts responded with organized ballot measures for new operating levies that would keep libraries from decreasing services.

Pat Losinski, director of the Columbus Metropolitan Library and part of the backbone of strong library leadership in Ohio, attributes Ohio libraries' lightning-fast response to the state's system of independent governance for libraries. “When you're independent, you don't need to line up at the city council's door with your hat in your hand and tell your sob story,” says Losinski. Instead, Ohio libraries could take their requests to voters in very short order.

The bevy of Ohio public libraries were among the 123 reported here that went to the polls with appeals for levies and bonds to support their work. In fact, the number of operating levies reported to LJ in 2009 was triple the number reported in 2008 and four times the total in 2007. “The library experienced cuts from the state, county, and city in one budget cycle when already struggling to provide services,” says Lisa Matte, director of the Jervis Public Library in Rome, NY. “Going directly to the patrons was our last and strongest resort. [Our operating measure] passed due to tremendous community support harnessed in an organized campaign, bringing staff, trustees, and patrons together.”

Jervis PL wasn't alone. Libraries nationwide won, despite the reality that voters were losing their homes to foreclosures at an alarming rate. Here are some of the reasons they voted to support their local libraries.

The context of the poor economy has put the value of library service in the spotlight. Reducing expenses and finding simple ways to save became fashionable in 2009 (witness the emergence of words like frugalista in Target ads) and with it has come a new respect for the free entertainment available at the library—books, movies, events, and classes. No surprise then, that in the second half of 2008 as the economy was unraveling, ALA reported record levels of library card registration, with 68 percent of Americans holding a card.

But the library has revealed itself to be more than free entertainment in this new economy: it's also a resource for Internet access when broadband or even dialup becomes too expensive to have at home; a reliable office from which to conduct a job search—and help in identifying where and how to search; and homework help and a safe haven for kids. It's a setting that has allowed libraries to distinguish themselves from businesses such as Internet search engines and megabookstores that crossed into their traditional space. Losinski feels libraries' evolving focus on providing transformational services has built goodwill equity—à la “this place is not only good for the community, it's good for me”—that could be drawn on when it was time to ask for money.

“When people are defaulting on their mortgages but still vote to invest in their library, they're clearly recognizing this as a core service,” Losinski says. “If anyone is questioning libraries' viability, the rate of referenda passage has proven something.”

Still, that doesn't mean libraries are getting a free ride. The high passage rate of operating referenda may also reveal libraries' outstanding read of what their communities will bear and what they will not. The successes in 2009 were carefully orchestrated, and winning requests included few bells and whistles.

In Washington, Sno-Isle Libraries' operating referendum was trimmed to cover just enough to maintain services, with a message sent to the voters who were being asked to sacrifice: the library was willing to make sacrifices, too. “Senior administrators agreed to a three percent pay cut next year even if the levy passed,” said communications director Mary Kelly in her response to the LJ survey. That message made for a powerful one-two punch when paired with the library's consistent communication about high demand for library service during difficult economic times. The referendum passed with 53 percent of the vote.

Looking at the year's building referenda shows that libraries scaled back dramatically in their requests as compared to 2008. There were no blockbuster building projects such as Atlanta-Fulton's 2008 passage of a $275 million request, or Palo Alto's $76 million project to build and remodel branches in California. In 2009, the average amount of money voted on in building referenda was only $5,287,868. This is in stark contrast to 2008's building referenda, where more than half the requests topped $10 million and stretched into the hundreds of millions. But even at 2009's dramatically smaller amounts, building referenda faced tougher opposition.

In Missouri, the Webster Groves Public Library is a case in point. With a “desperate need to expand,” according to Director Tom Cooper, the library and a small committee put together a rigorously constructed campaign to raise just $6.5 million. “It passed because we had carefully studied our needs, put together a strategic plan, and asked only for what the community seemed to require in an expanded library with better services,” says Cooper.

Voter limits were firm even in areas traditionally known for passionate support of libraries. In Ohio, where operating referenda passage was at 80 percent, building referenda had dismal results, with nary a single measure approved.

At the Delaware County Public Library, Director Mary Jane Santos says the library avoided a battle for a building referenda and instead will use its newly passed operating levy to pay down notes for the library's expansion. “It's much more difficult to convince the voting public to allow the library to grow and expand when they have to economize, save money, do without.”

Indeed, just a hop south, the Upper Arlington Public Library—in an upper-income, library-loving community—lost its bid for a .99-millage request that would raise $25 million to update and renovate the facility. Despite supportive editorials in the local papers, voters delivered a stunning defeat, with more than 70 percent going against the measure.

A sour economy amplifies flaws in campaigns and strengthens the opinions of naysayers. In April 2008, Anchorage Public Library, AK, development director Clare Stockert was celebrating passage of a modest library bond—the first to be successful in more than 30 years. She attributed the win to catching voters in a good mood, driven by rising state gas revenues. The Alaska economy was beginning to sour in early 2009 when the library went back to voters 12 months later, during a mayoral election, and asked for an additional (and just as modest) $1.5 million to complete the project. “The biggest reason for failure was bad timing,” says Stockert. “Our mayoral elections tend to bring out the anti–property tax crowd, and they were in full force this year.”

Colorado's Aurora Public Library felt the sting of organized, strident antitax activists in 2009 when voters turned down a ballot measure that would have increased property taxes to fund the library system. Sadly, the library closed four of its seven branches as a result. Library director Patti Bateman said the antitax group Citizens for Responsible Aurora Government (a sort of franchise that organizes in communities nationwide) played a pivotal role in the defeat but that other factors allowed the group's arguments to gain traction.

Confusion and disbelief also played critical roles. The ballot language was unclear, and citizens who didn't understand simply didn't vote. That option was made more attractive by a rampant feeling that the city was crying wolf, that the vision of shuttered libraries was just a ploy to get residents to opt for higher taxes. Bateman says the city's behavior with a small, neighborhood branch may have led citizens to have a false impression of the gravity of Aurora's situation. “Every year, the city planned to close this little library and every year a group of neighbors would mount a campaign to save it. Every year they would find some money, and the library would stay open.” That little library, like three other branches, is now closed.

Confusion and misinformation are death knells for library campaigns that ask voters to dip into their wallets. Consider the defeat of a $6.5 million bond for expansion of the Friendswood Public Library, TX. After years of expansion recommendations from the library staff and board, the city council placed the bond on the ballot just as the local economy began to decline and citizens were becoming cautious. Adding insult to injury, plans for other city projects were mixed in, diluting the clarity of the library's message and complicating the overall picture of how tax dollars would be used.

“Even those citizens who are very supportive of the library were concerned that there was no specific information as to the location of the new facility,” says library director Mary Perroni. “There was speculation and misinformation spread throughout the community. Emails were forwarded with misinformation, and even when the facts were reported, they were ignored. At the present time, there is still unrest in the community.”

The toll can be high when a measure fails, often pitting neighbor against neighbor and leaving staff feeling unappreciated. The San Mateo Public Library, CA*, took no chances with the fate of its campaign for two measures to generate operating funds that passed with a supermajority despite the state's economic collapse. A key aspect of the winning campaign was to involve multiple groups, from labor unions and businesses to neighborhood associations. The strategy meant more feet on the street in support of the referendum, but it also reinforced the library's message, short-circuiting the rumor mill. Further, bulletins addressed what was important to voters. “[We] focused on 'saving critical city services' and emphasiz[ed] that the revenue from the taxes would stay at the local level and not be sent to the county or state,” says Jan Busa, a management analyst for the library.

San Mateo also attributes its success to targeting frequent voters, spending on those who matter most. “These voters were called through phonebanks early in the campaign before their absentee mail-in ballots were sent,” says Busa. “This strategy may have been key for securing enough support to pass the two measures.”

As of this writing, despite some meager gains in employment, America is clearly not out of the economic woods. Libraries mounting referenda campaigns in 2010 must convince voters that investment in the library is essential even as they face an uncertain future. Libraries that fought for voter support in 2009—win or lose—have plenty of insight to inform this year's campaigns.

Consider the timing and the cost to your library both financially and emotionally if you lose before you decide to go to voters.

Ask only for what's essential and let the community tell you what essential means.

Be absolutely clear about how dollars will be spent and how it will benefit voters personally.

Don't go it alone—sell your message to important community groups and get their buy-in, too. Consider the role of informal groups, such as frequent voters who play a powerful role.

Communicate, communicate, communicate—spread your message far and wide.

And for those libraries that fought for funding in 2009, the campaign isn't over yet. The winners must demonstrate good stewardship and action with new tax dollars. In Ohio, where an operating referendum for Wright Memorial Public Library passed with a whopping 76 percent, Director Ann Snively is doing just that. “We had wonderful community participation and support throughout the campaign,” she says. “This points not only to how much people value their libraries but also to our responsibility to make sure they receive an excellent value for their tax dollars.”

The libraries that lost are considering next steps, as the need for funding has hardly dissipated. In Anchorage, the library is implementing a strategy that will leave it less vulnerable to the mood of the voters and arguments posed by antitax activists. “We're pursuing a library plan to build community support and create an inspiring vision for the future of the library,” says Stockert. “We feel this process will lead to better buy-in and support for future bond measures.”

Keeping one's chin up may be the most difficult challenge for those who didn't win, but grace abounds in even the most dire situations. In Aurora, amid the chaos of closing more than half the system's buildings, Bateman remains remarkably positive. “We aren't giving up,” she says. “Our plans this year are to enhance service to our citizens. They deserve that from their library no matter what.”