From @PSUVM.PSU.EDU:owner-govdoc-l@PSUVM.PSU.EDU Tue May 4 19:46:02 1993 Received: by a.cni.org id ; Tue, 4 May 93 19:45:55 -0400 Message-Id: <9305042345.AA08473@a.cni.org> Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU by PSUVM.PSU.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3563; Tue, 04 May 93 19:49:25 EDT Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@PSUVM) by PSUVM.PSU.EDU (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 4664; Tue, 4 May 1993 19:31:06 -0400 Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 18:28:29 CDT Reply-To: Discussion of Government Document Issues Sender: Discussion of Government Document Issues From: "Daniel P. O'Mahony (Documents)" Subject: Dupont Circle Reporter, No. 1 To: Multiple recipients of list GOVDOC-L ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- THE FOLLOWING IS BEING POSTED ON GOVDOC-L, MAPS-L, AND LAW-LIB. ------------------------------------------------------------------ | T H E D U P O N T C I R C L E R E P O R T E R | | | | An Informal Newsletter for the Federal | | Depository Library Community | | May 4, 1993 No. 1 | ------------------------------------------------------------------ CONTENTS: * Welcome to the Dupont Circle Reporter! (including reprint of GOVDOC-L postings) * Members of the Dupont Circle Group * What Happens Next? ------------------------------------------------------------------ WELCOME TO THE DUPONT CIRCLE REPORTER! This is the inaugural issue of the Dupont Circle Reporter. The intended audience of this newsletter is the federal depository library community: depository librarians and others with an interest in access to government information. The newsletter will appear irregularly, hopefully at least once per week. In addition to being distributed electronically via selected listservs, printed copies will be forwarded to federal depository libraries that do not have Internet/listserv connections. Readers are encouraged to copy and share the information in this newsletter with any groups or individuals that have an interest in government information. The purpose of this newsletter is to share information and facilitate discussion on the future of the Federal Depository Library Program. This newsletter is a communication tool of the Dupont Circle Group. The DCG is an independent group of depository librarians that gathered at offices on Dupont Circle in Washington, DC, on the weekend of April 16-18, 1993. The goal of the group for that weekend was to begin to develop a document for discussion on the goals and future of the Federal Depository Library Program. This newsletter is part of an effort to keep that discussion going and an attempt to reach as wide an audience as possible. The following messages were posted on GOVDOC-L in mid-April and give some background on the creation and activities of the Dupont Circle Group. ***************************************************************** GOVDOC-L posting April 16, 1993 Gary Cornwell, Chair Depository Library Council to the Public Printer During my remarks (as Chair of the Depository Library Council) at the ALA Midwinter Conference I referred to a number of problems currently facing the Depository Library Program. Of primary concern was the notion that we could no longer assume the status quo, that changes to the Program were inevitable and it was up to us to be a voice in those changes. Events during the intervening months have only served to reinforce that notion that the Program is in trouble. At the same time, however, the community's reaction to my comments has been extremely heartening. A number of people stepped forward and volunteered to help in any way they could. Of course, determining how they could help placed the onus of deciding how to proceed back in my lap. I obviously did not have all the answers and enlisted the advice of several leaders in the library and information fields to help determine what course of action to take. In particular, I worked hand-in-hand with Julie Wallace (Chair of GODORT) who had recently received a similar challenge of her own from the Joint Committee on Printing. Apparent to all concerned was that we (depository librarians) had to develop a model for a restructured DLP that we could all support. A model that not only met our criteria for an "ideal" DLP, but was also more efficient and cost effective. How to develop this model was not as readily apparent. If I have learned anything as Chair of the Depository Library Council, it is that our profession is filled with a number of intelligent, insightful, and yes, opinionated individuals and the problem became how to involve all of them in the process. After considering a number of options, it was decided that the best way to proceed was to get something down in writing that could be distributed to the community for their reaction. The problem then became, how to get the initial report prepared for community comment. With the Federal Depository Library Conference, the Spring Council Meeting, and the annual meetings of several library organizations coming up, time was of the essence and we needed to move quickly. Consequently, it was decided to put together a small working group of practicing documents librarians who were willing to pay their own way to Washington for the sole purpose of getting an initial concept down on paper that could be shared with the depository library community for input and revision. Determining whom to include in the group was not easy. Eventually, after consultation with the various library groups, it was decided to include the practicing librarians from the Depository Library Council, several past Chairs of GODORT, members of the first "Focus Group," and representatives of the various types of libraries in the Program. I know that there are literally hundreds of documents librarians out there that could have been included in this group and that each one of them would have made valuable contributions to the process. Unfortunately, producing any type of meaningful document with a group of that size is just not feasible. To all the people who volunteered to help, I would ask that you examine the work of this group and provide us with your own unique insight into the Program. The goal of this group is not to take over the decision making process for the DLP, rather it is to provide the community with an avenue for having a voice in its future. I honestly believe the very future of the Program is at stake and we must all contribute whatever and whenever opportunities are presented to us. The independent group will be meeting prior to the Federal Depository Conference and will provide draft reports from their meeting to Conference attendees and ultimately to the entire DLC community. Copies of the draft Council Report "Alternatives for Restructuring the Depository Library Program" will also be available for comment. Throughout the week, members of this working group as well as members of the Depository Library Council will be available to discuss the future structure of the DLP and we are counting on your input and assistance! Obviously, work from the group will be shared with the Depository Library Council and the various library organizations for their input, comments, and revision. Eventually, it is hoped that we can develop a unified plan that can be shared with member of Congress and other decision makers in Washington. Together we can help determine the shape of the DLP in years to come. Gary Cornwell Chair, Depository Library Council -------------------------------------------------------------- GARY CORNWELL PHONE: (904) 392-0366 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA LIBRARIES FAX: (904) 392-7251 DOCUMENTS DEPARTMENT BITNET: GARCORN@NERVM LIBRARY WEST INTERNET: GARCORN@NERVM.NERDC.UFL.EDU GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 32611 ***************************************************************** GOVDOC-L posting April 17, 1993 Julia Wallace, Chair ALA/Government Documents Roundtable (GODORT) Documents librarians who were at the ALA Midwinter Conference heard a lot of discussion of the Federal Depository Library Program, including reactions to the Superintendent of Documents letter of 11/18, and a very interesting "challenge" from the Chair of the Joint Committee on Printing. The challenge was for librarians to acknowledge a downward trend in funding and to identify cost-saving alternatives for the program. The challenge was rather complex, as was GODORT's response -- a full report was posted on GOVDOC-L shortly after the conference. In addition, Depository Library Council chair Gary Cornwell also challenged depository librarians to join in working for the future of the program, or face losing it. Since Midwinter the budget scene in Washington has become even more austere as both the legislative and executive branches try to meet goals for reducing their expenditures. Relating to the challenge, several things have happened. The GODORT Steering Committee has been consulted along the way, as have the leaders in other documents organizations. This message is to alert those of you coming to Washington for the depository conference to be prepared to contribute constructively to the planning for a new depository program. The really challenging discussions at the conference will take place outside of the official agenda, and you will want to be alert for them. In brief, the leadership in the Joint Committee on Printing has changed, and the challenge as it was framed by then-chair Charlie Rose is no longer in effect. However, GODORT and Depository Council leadership have taken up the challenge anyway, and have formed a small group which is working right now to help frame the questions and present possible scenarios. We hope to have some reports ready to distribute at the conference, to generate discussion there and into the summer conferences of the associations. Those who wish to have their views represented need to be ready to spend some time in reading, pondering, and discussing. There has been a great deal written about the depository program and possible future scenarios. I would recommend that you seek out the new issue of Government Publications Review for an article by several of our colleagues. Read it and see where you agree, where you disagree, what you would add. Then to set the issue in the current political context, come to the Legislative Update on Monday evening, April 19, at 6:00 at the U.S. Department of Labor. This is a difficult time for the depository program, but the stakes are high and we must take the threats seriously. Those of us at the conference will have a head start on the discussion. We will then need to find ways to bring all other depository librarians, and other stakeholders, into the discussion too. Perhaps GOVDOC-L will be one vehicle for that. See you in DC. Incidentally, I am on my way out the door, so e-mail sent by the time you see this will not reach me before the conference. But I hope many readers will want to join in planning for a viable future for the depository program, at the conference, at GODORT meetings this summer, and beyond. Julie Wallace, Chair, Government Documents Round Table (GODORT) American Library Association --------------------------------------------------------------- Julia F. Wallace, Gov. Pubs. Library Voice: (612) 626-7520 409 Wilson Library, U of MN FAX: (612) 626-9353 309 19th Avenue South Bitnet: J-WALL@UMINN1 Minneapolis, MN 55455 Internet: J-WALL@vm1.spcs.umn.edu *************************************************************** The members of the Dupont Circle Group are: Gary Cornwell, University of Florida, and Chair, Depository Library Council garcorn@nervm.bitnet Julia Wallace, University of Minnesota, and Chair, ALA Government Documents Roundtable (GODORT) j-wall@vm1.spcs.umn.edu Duncan Aldrich, University of Nevada, Reno duncan@equinox.unr.bitnet Tom Andersen, California State Library gps@water.ca.gov Diane Gardner, Harvard University dxg@harvarda.harvard.edu Carol Gordon, Milwaukee Public Library wilson@convex.csd.uwm.edu Steve Hayes, Notre Dame University hayes.2@nd.edu Sally Holterhoff, Valparaiso University School of Law sholt@exodus.valpo.edu Linda Kennedy, University of California, Davis lmkennedy@ucdavis.edu Ridley Kessler, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill kessler.davis@mhs.unc.edu Melissa Lamont, University of Connecticut hblad140@uconnvm.uconn.edu Sandee McAninch, University of Kentucky mcaninch@ukcc.bitnet Kay Melvin, Patent and Trademark Office 703-308-4472 Daniel O'Mahony, Brown University ap201159@brownvm.brown.edu John Shuler, Colgate University jshuler@colgate.edu Jack Sulzer, Pennsylvania State University jhs@psulias.psu.edu Susan Tulis, American Association of Law Libraries tulis@guvax.georgetown.edu Carol Watts, NOAA/National Envir. Satellite & Data Info. Services watts@nodc2.nodc.noaa.gov ****************************************************************** WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? In the rapidly changing electronic environment of today, the means by which government information is disseminated and made available to the public are becoming increasingly diverse. Whether or how the Federal Depository Library Program remains a part of the emerging national information infrastructure rests squarely with the depository library community. It is our collective responsibility to articulate the needs and benefits of the program and to participate in making the necessary changes if it is to be a viable program in an electronic world. As the stewards of the public's right to know for the past century, it is up to us to ensure this right for the next century. Future issues of this newsletter will include the draft documents prepared by the Dupont Circle Group. These were designed to focus discussion on the issues facing the depository program. It is our hope and intent that these documents will be shared and discussed with the entire depository community throughout the upcoming summer -- at local, state, regional and national meetings. (Plans are underway to include discussion sessions at the upcoming meetings or conferences of the Depository Library Council, Special Library Association, American Library Association/GODORT, and the American Association of Law Libraries.) Reports from these meetings and other input on these issues will also be included in future issues of the newsletter. Our overall plan is to produce a final report by mid-October with recommendations for the future direction of the Federal Depository Library Program. Comments and input relating to the issues presented in this newsletter or inquiries for further information can be addressed to any member of the Dupont Circle Group. Thank you. Dupont Circle Reporter/Number 1/May 4, 1993 ##################################################################### From @PSUVM.PSU.EDU:owner-govdoc-l@PSUVM.PSU.EDU Wed May 5 18:51:48 1993 Received: by a.cni.org id ; Wed, 5 May 93 18:51:43 -0400 Message-Id: <9305052251.AA00626@a.cni.org> Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU by PSUVM.PSU.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5690; Wed, 05 May 93 18:29:29 EDT Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@PSUVM) by PSUVM.PSU.EDU (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 2417; Wed, 5 May 1993 18:23:10 -0400 Date: Wed, 5 May 1993 17:18:21 CDT Reply-To: Discussion of Government Document Issues Sender: Discussion of Government Document Issues From: "Daniel P. O'Mahony (Documents)" Subject: Dupont Circle Reporter, No. 2 To: Multiple recipients of list GOVDOC-L ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- THE FOLLOWING IS BEING POSTED ON GOVDOC-L, MAPS-L, AND LAW-LIB. ----------------------------------------------------------------- | T H E D U P O N T C I R C L E R E P O R T E R | | | | An Informal Newsletter for the Federal | | Depository Library Community | | May 5, 1993 No. 2 | ----------------------------------------------------------------- CONTENTS: * Open Letter to the Depository Community ----------------------------------------------------------------- OPEN LETTER TO THE DEPOSITORY COMMUNITY Dear Colleagues: In two years we will witness the 100-year anniversary of the Printing Act of 1895 -- the law which established the Depository Library Program (DLP) under the U.S. Government Printing Office. Today, however, a new national information infrastructure is rapidly developing. Access to both public and proprietary information is increasingly available in digital, image, and voice formats via networks that too often do not include libraries. Unless bold action is taken soon to ensure the survival of the DLP in the electronic age, there may not be anything left to celebrate in 1995. In the past few months, developments have been unfolding that could have a profound effect on depository libraries. First, there is new leadership in Washington, including a new Vice President who is committed to developing information technology; the office of the Public Printer is in transition, and there is a new chair of the Joint Committee on Printing. Moreover, the new Congress is undertaking a self-study and reexamining the entire Congressional committee structure. And both the Executive and Legislative branches seem committed to cost reductions. Second, several bills currently being considered in Congress directly relate to electronic information and depository libraries. The GPO Access bill (H.R.1328 and S.564) would require the Government Printing Office to provide an online Congressional Record and Federal Register free to depository libraries and at incremental costs of distribution to others. It also permits federal agencies to voluntarily disseminate their electronic publications through the same system. The NREN Implementation bill (S.4) would provide funding for those schools and libraries not yet connected to connect to the Internet/NREN. The Electronic Library bill (S.626) and the High Performance Computing and High Speed Networking Applications bill (H.R.1757) would provide funding for demonstration projects and applications for educational and library use of the Internet/NREN and access to government information. Likewise, bills reauthorizing the Paperwork Reduction Act have been or will be introduced which would impact depository libraries. Further, the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), working under the provisions of the American Technology Preeminence Act of 1991, is moving ahead to gather copies of all government electronic databases and developing a locator system, in addition to the FedWorld bulletin board gateway already being run by NTIS. Third, structural and operational problems with the present Depository Library Program and access to government information have been identified by various groups with proposals for change. The FY 1993 budget crisis at GPO and the resulting cuts in services, titles, and format changes have served to highlight some of these problems. The Depository Library Council has devoted considerable attention to the structure of the DLP and has issued a report, "Alternatives for Restructuring the Depository Library Program." (See also Administrative Notes, 12/15/92). The Government Documents Roundtable (GODORT) of the American Library Association has also been addressing structural and operational concerns of the program. In addition, groups such as the Association of Research Libraries, the Coalition for Networked Information, and the Information Industry Association have suggested alternative models for disseminating government information. All of these efforts are based on the same assumption -- the system developed during the 19th Century in a print-based world will be unable to deliver the kinds of information services required in the 21st Century. At the 1993 ALA Midwinter Conference in Denver, some of these developments began to converge. In his address to the Government Documents Roundtable, Gary Cornwell, chair of the Depository Library Council, voiced concern for the future of the DLP. He spoke of a number of difficulties facing the program and of the inevitability of change (see Administrative Notes, 2/28/93). He called on the depository community to take an active role in determining the future viability of the Depository Library Program. At that same January conference, Julia Wallace, on behalf of ALA/GODORT, received a challenge from the Joint Committee on Printing asking librarians to acknowledge a downward trend in funding and to identify cost-saving alternatives for the program. With the subsequent change in leadership at JCP, the original challenge as it was formed by then-chair Rep. Charlie Rose was no longer in effect. However, the chairs of Council and GODORT jointly decided to take this as an opportunity to begin to examine and reevaluate the mission, goals, and structure of the DLP, in an effort to organize discussion on the future of the depository program. A small independent group of volunteers was put together and charged with the task of getting something down in writing which might serve as the starting point for community-wide discussion of the issues and problems facing the DLP. This group (referred to as the Dupont Circle Group) did extensive background work between January and April, looking at this complex array of issues and the various efforts underway. Their goal was to prepare a draft paper that would be available for discussion at the Federal Depository Conference in April. The group's draft statement on the mission and goals of a depository library program and various scenarios for an effective system for disseminating government information were shared with the librarians gathered at the April conference. These materials were offered as an attempt to begin focused discussion on the issues and to solicit input from the entire depository community. In order to give all depository librarians an opportunity to participate in this process, Regional Depository Libraries and leaders in the various library organizations have been asked to distribute background materials and to coordinate discussion and feedback in their areas. Each of us in the depository community has unique insights and important contributions which are vital to this process. We encourage you to participate in the discussions of these issues and to provide suggestions, reactions, and feedback on the problems and proposals facing the program and the community. Our ultimate goal is to develop a document that articulates the goals, benefits, and structure of an improved depository library program, all the while building support for and strengthening the public's right to government information. In his opening remarks at the Depository Library Conference on April 21, Superintendent of Documents Wayne Kelley said that, in these rapidly changing times, answers are worthless unless you ask the right questions. The draft documents developed by the Dupont Circle Group ask a lot of hard questions. Now we all must work together to find the answers and solutions to ensuring a healthy and meaningful depository system for another century to come. - Dupont Circle Group ***************************************************************** STATE AND LOCAL MEETINGS OF DEPOSITORY LIBRARIANS WILL BE UNDERWAY SOON. FOR INFORMATION ON THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE DISCUSSION MEETING(S) IN YOUR STATE, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR REGIONAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARIAN OR A DCG MEMBER, * * OR * * VOLUNTEER TO WORK WITH YOUR REGIONAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY TO HELP PLAN A MEETING IN YOUR AREA TO TALK ABOUT THESE ISSUES! ***************************************************************** The members of the Dupont Circle Group are: Gary Cornwell, University of Florida, and Chair, Depository Library Council garcorn@nervm.bitnet Julia Wallace, University of Minnesota, and Chair, ALA Government Documents Roundtable (GODORT) j-wall@vm1.spcs.umn.edu Duncan Aldrich, University of Nevada, Reno duncan@equinox.unr.edu Tom Andersen, California State Library gps@water.ca.gov Diane Garner, Harvard University dxg@harvarda.harvard.edu Carol Gordon, Milwaukee Public Library wilson@convex.csd.uwm.edu Steve Hayes, Notre Dame University hayes.2@nd.edu Sally Holterhoff, Valparaiso University School of Law sholt@exodus.valpo.edu Linda Kennedy, University of California, Davis lmkennedy@ucdavis.edu Ridley Kessler, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill kessler.davis@mhs.unc.edu Melissa Lamont, University of Connecticut hblad140@uconnvm.uconn.edu Sandee McAninch, University of Kentucky mcaninch@ukcc.bitnet Kay Melvin, Patent and Trademark Office 703-308-4472 Daniel O'Mahony, Brown University ap201159@brownvm.brown.edu John Shuler, Colgate University jshuler@colgate.edu Jack Sulzer, Pennsylvania State University jhs@psulias.psu.edu Susan Tulis, American Association of Law Libraries tulis@guvax.georgetown.edu Carol Watts, NOAA/National Envir. Satellite & Data Info. Services watts@nodc2.nodc.noaa.gov Dupont Circle Reporter/Number 2/May 5, 1993 ################################################################### From @PSUVM.PSU.EDU:owner-govdoc-l@PSUVM.PSU.EDU Wed May 5 18:51:54 1993 Received: by a.cni.org id ; Wed, 5 May 93 18:51:49 -0400 Message-Id: <9305052251.AA00630@a.cni.org> Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU by PSUVM.PSU.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5703; Wed, 05 May 93 18:32:04 EDT Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@PSUVM) by PSUVM.PSU.EDU (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 2483; Wed, 5 May 1993 18:23:31 -0400 Date: Wed, 5 May 1993 17:21:02 CDT Reply-To: Discussion of Government Document Issues Sender: Discussion of Government Document Issues From: "Daniel P. O'Mahony (Documents)" Subject: Dupont Circle Reporter, No. 3 To: Multiple recipients of list GOVDOC-L ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- THE FOLLOWING IS BEING POSTED ON GOVDOC-L, MAPS-L, AND LAW-LIB. ------------------------------------------------------------------ | T H E D U P O N T C I R C L E R E P O R T E R | | | | An Informal Newsletter for the Federal | | Depository Library Community | | May 5, 1993 No. 3 | ------------------------------------------------------------------ CONTENTS: * Trouble in Capitol City * What If We Do Nothing? * What Can We Do? * Suggested Readings for More Information ------------------------------------------------------------------ TROUBLE IN CAPITOL CITY The Federal Depository Library Program is in trouble -- BIG TROUBLE! Structural, organizational, and budgetary weaknesses that have hindered the program for years have been exacerbated by the recent onslaught of electronic government information products and services. Budget problems at all levels -- from the Federal government to the local depository library -- have forced a reevaluation of the way public information is being delivered through the program. Many regional depository libraries are reconsidering their regional status, no longer able to handle the collection and other burdens of the system. And as new technologies develop, different delivery mechanisms are emerging that do not bother to include depository libraries. The underlying ideals behind a "depository library" are still as valid as ever -- all citizens have a right to access public information in all formats, and depositories play an integral role in providing free and open access to govenment information. The question is how can a system established around a print-based, 19th Century model adapt to the very different dissemination and access requirements of the current information environment?! The Dupont Circle Group is attempting to focus discussion on the problems and issues facing the Depository Library Program in an effort to formulate a proposal for an improved program for access and delivery of government information. Please lend your voice to the discussions by participating in local, state, regional, and national meetings which will address these issues. For more information, please contact any member of the Dupont Circle Group. ******************************************************************** WHAT IF WE DO NOTHING? Given the current budgetary situation and the rapid development of information technologies and delivery mechanisms to the citizen, the following is a view of the Federal Depository Library Program environment in five years if the status quo is maintained: * The national information infrastructure will continue to develop at an increasingly rapid pace, with or without depository libraries. * Less information will be available through the Depository Library Program to stimulate small businesses and other entrepreneurial enterprises. * Less information will be available through the Depository Library Program to citizens to make informed political and social decisions. * Less information will be available through the Depository Library Program to students to further their education and to the general public for life-long learning. * Less information will be available through the Depository Library Program to researchers for innovations in scientific and technological developments. * Less information will be available through the Depository Library Program to scholars for the furthering of human knowledge and social good. * What is available through the Program is increasingly distributed to taxpayers in untimely, inappropriate, and unusable formats. * The long term and continuous history of budget deficiencies will continue to plague the Program and deteriorate information services to the public. * The diffusion of electronic government sources will continue without structure or organization, making it more difficult for the average citizen to access public information. * The GPO and the FDLP are effectively locked out of online electronic information dissemination, constricting the availability of these tax-supported resources to the public. * As more critical government information is disseminated electronically, what remains in the FDLP becomes increasingly less relevant and less useful. * As individual libraries are forced to take on greater responsibilities in locating and acquiring government publications and information services, the overall costs to the public will increase. * As the government information environment becomes increasingly decentralized and complicated, citizens will not know where to turn for information. * Scattered and unconnected channels of distribution will develop leading to waste, duplication, and inefficiency. * GPO's diminished role will negatively impact on the identification and bibliographic control of government information sources, and citizens will not know where to look for information. * Unstructured dissemination will further divide citizens into the information "haves" and "have nots." * Some libraries will find the Program is not meeting the needs of their communities and will drop out, thus further reducing overall public access. * "Back to the Future" -- As the basic components of the FDLP are undermined, the public faces a return to the costly and chaotic days before the Printing Act of 1895. ******************************************************************** WHAT CAN WE DO? Changes are ocurring in the national information infrastructure. Whether depository libraries will continue to be a part of this infrastructure will depend on the community's actions. We must take an active role in determining our future and the future of public access to government information. The documents developed by the Dupont Circle Group attempt to focus discussion on these issues. These documents begin to outline the mission, goals, and benefits of a depository library program. In addition, they propose models for governance and service of a depository library program. Above all, the documents ask questions that need input and responses from all of us in the depository community. The Dupont Circle documents referred to here will be distributed beginning with the next issue of the Reporter. (In addition, we are working on setting up an FTP site where the documents will also be available.) These documents are not a "final result" but rather a suggested start for discussion. Local, state, and regional associations and library groups are encouraged to add these discussions to their upcoming meetings. All members of the depository community should be provided the opportunity to contribute toward reshaping the Depository Library Program. Discussion sessions are being planned for the national meetings of the American Library Association, the Special Library Association, and the American Association of Law Libraries. State GODORT meetings in Minnesota, Florida, and other states will also address these issues. Reports from these meetings will be posted here, to further discussion and present the status of our progress. It is the hope and intent of the Dupont Circle Group that the input and feedback from all of these discussions can be coalesced to form a consensus report on the future direction of the depository program (to be completed by mid-October). ******************************************************************** SUGGESTED READINGS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Cornwell, Gary, et al., "Problems and Issues Affecting the U.S. Depository Library Program and the GPO: The Librarians' Manifesto," Government Publications Review, vol. 20, no. 2 (March/April 1993), pp. 121-140. [NOTE: See also in the same issue of GPR articles by Paul Massa, J. Timothy Sprehe, and Bruce Morton.] "GPO/2001: Vision for a New Millennium," Government Printing Office, 1991. SuDoc: GP1.2:V82. "Informing the Nation: Federal Information Dissemination in an Electronic Age," Office of Technology Assessment, 1988. SuDoc: Y3.T22/2:2In3/9 (also Exec. Summary). Kahin, Brian, "Information Policy and the Internet: Toward a Public Information Infrastructure in the United States," Government Publications Review, vol. 18, no. 5 (September/ October 1991) pp. 451-472. "National Publications Act of 1979," Committee Print prepared for the Committee on House Administration, 1979. SuDoc: Y4.H81/3:N21. Oakley, Robert, et al., "Alternatives for Restructuring the Depository Library Program: A Report to the Superintendent of Documents and the Public Printer from the Depository Library Council," April 1993. Rhulin, Michele, et al, "National Research and Education Network and the Federal Depository Library Program," Documents to the People, vol. 19, no. 2 (June 1991), pp. 106-109. Dupont Circle Reporter/Number 3/May 5, 1993 ################################################################ From @PSUVM.PSU.EDU:owner-govdoc-l@PSUVM.PSU.EDU Thu May 6 18:15:49 1993 Received: by a.cni.org id ; Thu, 6 May 93 18:15:44 -0400 Message-Id: <9305062215.AA08938@a.cni.org> Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU by PSUVM.PSU.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9342; Thu, 06 May 93 18:20:02 EDT Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@PSUVM) by PSUVM.PSU.EDU (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 4886; Thu, 6 May 1993 18:03:01 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 17:00:03 CDT Reply-To: Discussion of Government Document Issues Sender: Discussion of Government Document Issues From: "Daniel P. O'Mahony (Documents)" Subject: Dupont Circle Reporter, No. 4 To: Multiple recipients of list GOVDOC-L ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- THE FOLLOWING IS BEING POSTED ON GOVDOC-L, MAPS-L, AND LAW-LIB. ----------------------------------------------------------------- | T H E D U P O N T C I R C L E R E P O R T E R | | | | An Informal Newsletter for the Federal | | Depository Library Community | | May 6, 1993 No. 4 | ----------------------------------------------------------------- CONTENTS: * Discussion Draft: Mission Statement and Goals of a Federal Information Access Program * Discussion Draft: Benefits of a Depository Library Program * Discussion Draft: Staking Our Claim in the Electronic Environment ----------------------------------------------------------------- This issue of the newsletter includes three "Discussion Draft" documents written by the Dupont Circle Group. These documents are presented as part of an effort to focus discussion on the future of the Federal Depository Library Program. (The next issue of the newsletter will include additional draft documents, presenting possible models for a new depository program.) ----------------------------------------------------------------- * DUPONT CIRCLE DISCUSSION DRAFT * MISSION STATEMENT AND GOALS FEDERAL INFORMATION ACCESS PROGRAM The mission of a federal information access program is to make government information freely available in usable formats to meet the diverse needs of multiple publics. Underlying values and assumptions: * Democracy requires an informed citizenry; access to government information supports education, research, and scientific and technological development, and improves decision-making for economic development and well-being, the environment, health, safety, security, and other societal goals. * All citizens have a right to public information regardless of format. * An organized, cooperative program is an efficient and cost- effective mechanism to disseminate government information for public agencies and the public. Goals and Objectives: A federal information access program must be tied to the life cycle of government information, ensuring public participation in all phases of information creation, distribution, access, use, and evaluation. Creation of Information * All program participants, including agencies and libraries, will cooperate in interpreting the publics' needs for information. * Participating libraries will advocate the public's need for vital government information products and services. * All participants will cooperate in designing usable information products. * The program will promote and develop standards which facilitate access to government information. Distribution of Information * The Federal Government and participating libraries will form a partnership in the cost-effective and timely distribution of public information services and products. * The program will ensure the equitable distribution and/or access to federal information sources. * The program will produce and distribute government information in the most appropriate and usable format(s). Access to Information * The program will provide effective means for bibliographic control and intellectual access to government information. * Libraries will select and maintain information products and services from the program in the most appropriate and cost- effective format. * The program will effectively ensure the preservation and archiving of government information. * The program will effectively meet the publics' needs for access to federal information products and services. * Participating libraries will facilitate access to government information by navigating, mediating, and analyzing a complex array of information choices. Use of Information * Participating libraries will provide a physical place and necessary equipment for use of public information for all citizens. * The program will provide adequate training for librarians to effectively manage and service government information collections. * Libraries will provide instruction to users of government information products and services. * The program will promote public awareness of the program and government information. * Programs and services in the participating libraries will enhance the value of public information. Evaluation * The program will facilitate communication among all program participants and others concerned with government information. * Libraries will select and access materials based on evaluation of user/constituent needs. * Librarians will provide feedback to federal agencies. * The program will evaluate its effectiveness in carrying out the program mission and goals. ******************************************************************* * DUPONT CIRCLE DISCUSSION DRAFT * BENEFITS OF A FEDERAL INFORMATION ACCESS PROGRAM (DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM) Benefits Which Libraries and Librarians in the Program Provide to the Public: * Localizes federal information -- places critical government information relating to education, economic development, political participation, and other social issues, in the local community. * Enhances the use of government information for technology transfer, economic stimulus, and entrepreneurial enterprise. * Provides free, open, and equal access in every Congressional district. * Serves as advocate for the public's right to know. * Assists in identifying and locating information. * Makes information useable through bibliographic control, collection maintenance, reference, and other services. * Serves as a single point of access to a wide array of government information products and services. * Helps and instructs the public in the use of electronic and other information resources. * Serves as ombudsman with federal agencies to meet public information needs. * Maintains historical and archival collections for future access. Benefits Which Libraries and Librarians in the Program Provide to Federal Agencies: * Helps fulfill agencies' obligations to disseminate information. * Takes advantage of historical and existing information networks. * Supplies an efficient and cost-effective way for agencies to widely disseminate their information. * Shares responsibility for providing intellectual and physical access to agency information. * Facilitates cross-agency dissemination of information. * Serves as a proving ground for public information technologies. * Provides a forum for feedback from the public. ******************************************************************** * DUPONT CIRCLE DISCUSSION DRAFT * STAKING OUR CLAIM IN THE ELECTRONIC ENVIRONMENT Strengths of the Federal Depository Library Program: * Human resources * Free public access * Cover entire scope of government information * Outreach and educational functional * Exist at national level * Localize federal information * Public value enhancement * Maintains archival collections of government information Questions: 1) Numerous individual and group initiatives are attempting to develop public access and to promote computer networking through community institutions such as schools and libraries to the Internet/NREN and its resources. This includes government information at all levels. How should we, as government information professionals, align ourselves with, and provide input to national initiatives and programs which are likely to evolve under the Clinton/Gore National Information Infrastructure technology initiative? 2) As Federal information policy continues to develop and the formation of a national information infrastructure continues to take place through the legislative process, what should be our strategy for representing our interests in new and forthcoming legislation? 3) Does the system have to be designed to ensure that all 1,400 libraries currently in the Program are included? 4) How we can help provide vision and educate our colleagues and administrators about the potential of a new electronic system? 5) How do we move ahead given the disparity and varying goals among the individual libraries in the Program? 6) What are we doing that is different from other providers of government information? **************************************************************** The members of the Dupont Circle Group are: Gary Cornwell, University of Florida, and Chair, Depository Library Council garcorn@nervm.bitnet Julia Wallace, University of Minnesota, and Chair, ALA Government Documents Roundtable (GODORT) j-wall@vm1.spcs.umn.edu Duncan Aldrich, University of Nevada, Reno duncan@equinox.unr.edu Tom Andersen, California State Library gps@water.ca.gov Diane Garner, Harvard University dxg@harvarda.harvard.edu Carol Gordon, Milwaukee Public Library wilson@convex.csd.uwm.edu Steve Hayes, Notre Dame University hayes.2@nd.edu Sally Holterhoff, Valparaiso University School of Law sholt@exodus.valpo.edu Linda Kennedy, University of California, Davis lmkennedy@ucdavis.edu Ridley Kessler, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill kessler.davis@mhs.unc.edu Melissa Lamont, University of Connecticut hblad140@uconnvm.uconn.edu Sandee McAninch, University of Kentucky mcaninch@ukcc.bitnet Kay Melvin, Patent and Trademark Office 703-308-4472 Daniel O'Mahony, Brown University ap201159@brownvm.brown.edu John Shuler, Colgate University jshuler@colgate.edu Jack Sulzer, Pennsylvania State University jhs@psulias.psu.edu Susan Tulis, American Association of Law Libraries tulis@guvax.georgetown.edu Carol Watts, NOAA/National Envir. Satellite & Data Info. Services watts@nodc2.nodc.noaa.gov Dupont Circle Reporter/Number 4/May 6, 1993 ################################################################### From @PSUVM.PSU.EDU:owner-govdoc-l@PSUVM.PSU.EDU Thu May 6 18:18:50 1993 Received: by a.cni.org id ; Thu, 6 May 93 18:18:45 -0400 Message-Id: <9305062218.AA08957@a.cni.org> Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU by PSUVM.PSU.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9347; Thu, 06 May 93 18:22:58 EDT Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@PSUVM) by PSUVM.PSU.EDU (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 4941; Thu, 6 May 1993 18:03:31 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 17:00:25 CDT Reply-To: Discussion of Government Document Issues Sender: Discussion of Government Document Issues From: "Daniel P. O'Mahony (Documents)" Subject: Dupont Circle Reporter, No. 5 To: Multiple recipients of list GOVDOC-L ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- THE FOLLOWING IS BEING POSTED ON GOVDOC-L, MAPS-L, AND LAW-LIB. ----------------------------------------------------------------- | T H E D U P O N T C I R C L E R E P O R T E R | | | | An Informal Newsletter for the Federal | | Depository Library Community | | May 6, 1993 No. 5 | ----------------------------------------------------------------- CONTENTS: * Discussion Draft: Governance Models for a Federal Information Dissemination System * Discussion Draft: Service Models for Government Information ----------------------------------------------------------------- This issue of the newsletter includes two "Discussion Draft" documents written by the Dupont Circle Group. These documents are presented as part of an effort to focus discussion on the future of the Federal Depository Library Program. (Issue No. 4 of the newsletter presented additional draft documents, including a mission statement and goals, benefits, and strengths of a depository library program.) ----------------------------------------------------------------- * DUPONT CIRCLE DISCUSSION DRAFT * GOVERNANCE MODELS FOR A FEDERAL INFORMATION DISSEMINATION SYSTEM Governance Model 1: GPO as Primary Disseminator of Government Information. In this scenario the Government Printing Office continues as the major administrator and supervisor of the Depository Library Program, now renamed Federal Information Access Program (FIAP). GPO would set the regulations, guidelines, and specifications for a tiered organization of FIAP participating libraries. The GPO would be responsible for moving with the FIAP libraries into an electronic future while continuing to disseminate information in traditional formats. Governance Model 2: Federal Information Access Program in which GPO continues to distribute print-based products; another agency coordinates access to electronic information services. While other agencies are rapidly moving into electronic publishing, GPO is oriented toward print publishing and distribution. GPO is unlikely to effectively and successfully manage the integration of distribution of electronic services into the Federal Depository Library Program. GPO has a long-established distribution system for print based products--paper, fiche and tangible electronic products such as CD-ROMS and diskettes. It will be more cost effective to maintain one distribution system for tangible print and electronic products. An agency which is an integral part of the developing national information infrastructure should coordinate access to electronic federal information. For Federal electronic information in general, this agency would be responsible for developing standards, archiving information, organizing data, and creating a locator file. The agency would also manage a federal electronic information access system, and provide product and service support for electronic depositories. A number of existing agencies--NTIS, NTIA, NSF could assume this responsibility. Our greatest success would lie with a dynamic agency with a powerful role. Within this model, we need to determine responsibility for overall management of the program, including identification and selection of depositories, enforcement, communication, etc. It is important not to have two separate systems; any federal depository should be able to direct users to appropriate federal information regardless of format. Governance Model 3: New Disseminator of government information. This agency is designed to address the problems that exist in the present system of dissemination of federal government information, improve public access to this information, and facilitate the information access and dissemination functions of the federal government. The lead agency could be an existing agency (NARA, OMB, GPO, NTIA, NTIS) or a new independent agency. In either case, it would be an executive agency subject to congressional committee oversight and legislative authority, and would have the sole mission of information access and dissemination. The government wide responsibilities of this agency are: regulations/standards/compliance; information locator/gateway; distribution/access/libraries; archival function; education/training; promotion/public relations. Dissemination of information from this agency would be multi-faceted to include federal agencies, depository libraries, public access networks, and the private sector. ******************************************************************* * DUPONT CIRCLE DISCUSSION DRAFT * SERVICE MODELS FOR GOVERNMENT INFORMATION Service Model 1: "Federal Information Service Centers" BASIC SERVICE CENTERS Must provide minimum service levels to support fundamental information needs for users to operate in a democratic society. Options for receipt of government information through the Program: 1) Receive a pre-defined core collection of government information not restricted by format. 2) Receive a small basic collection based on item number. 3) Receive a small basic collection based on a voucher or monetary ceiling. Questions: 1) What should the basic minimum technical and service requirements be for a library to become a Basic Service Center? 2) Cost effectiveness of each of these options for both the provider and recipient of government information? 3) What administrative/operations standards should be applied to Basic Service Centers (retention, bibliographic control, disposition lists, etc.)? 4) Should there be a minimum or maximum number Basic Service Centers, or specific geographic dispersal? 5) Who decides what libraries should be Basic Service Centers? 6) What are other options for receiving a basic level of government information? 7) What would be included in a core collection and who would decide? How would it evolve and change? INTERMEDIATE INFORMATION CENTERS In addition to fulfilling the same obligations as a Basic Service Centers, Intermediate Information Centers must also meet the basic educational needs of all users in the congressional district as well as the primary information needs of businesses, local government, schools and other community institutions. 1) Must receive a higher percentage of documents than a Basic Service Centers. 2) Higher level electronic connectivity. 3) Must invest in developing value added approaches to government information. 4) Provide gateway for users. 5) Provide higher level of mediation and service than Basic Service Centers. Questions: 1) Impact of additional service requirements on public libraries and other small depositories? 2) What administrative and service standards should be applied to Intermediate Information Centers? 3) Should there be a minimum or maximum number of Intermediate Information Centers? 4) Who decides what libraries should be Intermediate Information Centers? 5) What should the basic minimum technical requirements of a Intermediate Information Center (i.e., document delivery, etc.)? 6) Should item selection capabilities of Intermediate Information Centers be limited to differentiate them from Full Service Centers? 7) What other criteria could be used to differentiate Intermediate Information Centers from Full Service Centers? 8) What options exist for Intermediate Information Centers to receive government information (i.e., item numbers, voucher, etc.)? 9) Is there a need for Intermediate Information Centers vis-a-vis Basic and Full Service Centers? FULL SERVICE CENTERS In addition to fulfilling the same obligations as an Intermediate Information Center, Full Service Centers would provide research level collections, access, and services to users, institutions of higher education, high-tech firms, and the research & development needs of business and industry. 1) Option to select all items and services available through the Program. 2) Would supplement government supplied information with locally developed software, programs, or databases. 3) Develop local network services for sharing government supplied electronic information. 4) Develop locally mounted databases. 5) Provide document delivery and other research level services to the public. Questions: 1) Impact of additional technical requirements on Full Service Centers? 2) What administrative and service standards should be applied to Full Service Centers? 3) Should there be a minimum or maximum number Full Service Centers? 4) Who decides what libraries should be Full Service Centers? 5) What should the basic minimum technical requirements of a Full Service Centers ? 6) What are the benefits to libraries to become Full Service Centers as opposed to Intermediate or Basic Service Centers? 7) Should administrative, archival, and education service responsibilities be placed with Full Service Libraries? If not, what resource sharing consortiums or other arrangements might develop to fill these needs? 8) Does a need exist for the traditional concept of Regional Libraries? What other models might exist to fulfill this role? 9) Should Full Service Libraries act as libraries of last resort? ------------------------------------------------------------------ Service Model 2: "Government Information Access Centers" This scenario will provide a flexible, multi-faceted access system to government information resources. By providing for the sharing of electronic public information resources available through participating libraries, this scenario has potential for access to a wide spectrum of local, state, and federal information resources through Government Information Access Centers (GIACs). In this scenario all libraries participating in the Program are selectives. Participating libraries may select one or more options from the menu below, e.g., a library may choose Options A and C to have a core collection as well as access to the gateway, or Options C and D to have access to the gateway and to develop value added state and federal economic databases for redistribution to other participating libraries. Regional administrative functions currently associated with Regional libraries would be assumed by the lead agency or by a consortia of participating libraries, e.g., archival collections, education, training, user/library support, etc. This scenario is designed to allow for the migration of all existing GPO depository libraries into the new library structure. The proposed menu of options could include: Option A) Predefined core collection (mixture of paper, microfiche, and hard copy electronic formats) Option B) Paper, microfiche, and hard copy electronic formats (Current selection process) Option C) Gateway -- Access to online electronic services packaged and provided through Program providers and participants. (Uses pre-packaged software) Option D) Electronic services provider (packager of customized electronic services for internal and external use) Questions: 1) What should the minimum technical and service requirements be for a library to participate? 2) Should all administrative and service functions currently performed by regionals be absorbed by a new lead agency, or a consortium of existing GIACs? 3) What administrative/operations standards should be applied to GIACs? 4) Is this a cost-effective alternative? 5) How is the core collection defined? 6) How should providers in "Option D" share products with the rest of the system? ******************************************************************** The members of the Dupont Circle Group are: Gary Cornwell, University of Florida, and Chair, Depository Library Council garcorn@nervm.bitnet Julia Wallace, University of Minnesota, and Chair, ALA Government Documents Roundtable (GODORT) j-wall@vm1.spcs.umn.edu Duncan Aldrich, University of Nevada, Reno duncan@equinox.unr.edu Tom Andersen, California State Library gps@water.ca.gov Diane Garner, Harvard University dxg@harvarda.harvard.edu Carol Gordon, Milwaukee Public Library wilson@convex.csd.uwm.edu Steve Hayes, Notre Dame University hayes.2@nd.edu Sally Holterhoff, Valparaiso University School of Law sholt@exodus.valpo.edu Linda Kennedy, University of California, Davis lmkennedy@ucdavis.edu Ridley Kessler, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill kessler.davis@mhs.unc.edu Melissa Lamont, University of Connecticut hblad140@uconnvm.uconn.edu Sandee McAninch, University of Kentucky mcaninch@ukcc.bitnet Kay Melvin, Patent and Trademark Office 703-308-4472 Daniel O'Mahony, Brown University ap201159@brownvm.brown.edu John Shuler, Colgate University jshuler@colgate.edu Jack Sulzer, Pennsylvania State University jhs@psulias.psu.edu Susan Tulis, American Association of Law Libraries tulis@guvax.georgetown.edu Carol Watts, NOAA/National Envir. Satellite & Data Info. Services watts@nodc2.nodc.noaa.gov Dupont Circle Reporter/Number 5/May 6, 1993 ################################################################### From @PSUVM.PSU.EDU:owner-govdoc-l@PSUVM.PSU.EDU Thu May 13 21:23:09 1993 Received: by a.cni.org id ; Thu, 13 May 93 21:23:00 -0400 Message-Id: <9305140123.AA06550@a.cni.org> Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU by PSUVM.PSU.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3032; Thu, 13 May 93 21:28:17 EDT Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@PSUVM) by PSUVM.PSU.EDU (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 5848; Thu, 13 May 1993 21:28:10 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 17:09:34 -0800 Reply-To: Discussion of Government Document Issues Sender: Discussion of Government Document Issues From: "Daniel P. O'Mahony (Documents)" Subject: Dupont Circle Reporter, No. 6 To: Multiple recipients of list GOVDOC-L ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- THE FOLLOWING IS BEING POSTED ON GOVDOC-L, MAPS-L, AND LAW-LIB. ----------------------------------------------------------------- | T H E D U P O N T C I R C L E R E P O R T E R | | | | An Informal Newsletter for the Federal | | Depository Library Community | | May 13, 1993 No. 6 | ----------------------------------------------------------------- CONTENTS: * "Public Knowlege for the Greater Good: A View toward Restructuring the DLP" * Keep Those Comments Coming (GOVDOC-L posting) * Clarification on "Deadlines" ----------------------------------------------------------------- PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE FOR THE GREATER PUBLIC GOOD: A VIEW TOWARD RESTRUCTURING THE DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM John Shuler, Colgate University "You don't need a weatherman to tell which way the wind is blowing." -- Bob Dylan The collective prosperity and fortune of our small community of 1,400 federal depository librarians depends on the endurance of two essential (and conflicting) truths. The first is a democratic society's political need to maintain a competitive private marketplace of ideas and information. The second is the need to control and organize public information into predictable channels. These conflicts will remain unchanged in a world dominated by electronic transmissions of public information. If our community can not speak effectively to the proud traditions of the Depository Library Program and its critical place in the next century, then no one will speak on our behalf. It is no longer a question of elite vs. the non-elite, the haves vs. have- nots, the connected vs. non-connected. We all have an equal measure of responsibility (some might even venture to say "blame") for our current situation. Let us embrace this essential fact, honor it for what it means, and, damn it, move on. If we can not articulate our needs, and the publics we are supposed to serve, then no one will testify on our behalf. Recall only a short year ago when all the media landscape was ablaze with the heat and light of Ross Perot's electronic town hall. According to the New York Times, the idea of a electronic town hall occurred to the pugnacious Texan in the late 1960's: "What this country needed, Mr. Perot thought, was a good, long talk with itself." He thought he knew how to get that conversation started. Why not use computer technology to tap into the opinions and ideas of citizens? "The information age was dawning, and Mr. Perot, then building what would become one of the world's largest computer companies, saw in its glow the answer for everything. Every week, Mr. Perot proposed, the television networks would broadcast an hour long program in which one issue would be discussed. Viewers would record their opinions by marking computer cards, which they would mail to regional tabulating centers. Consensus would be reached, and the leaders would know what the people wanted. Mr. Perot gave his idea a name that draped the old dream of pure democracy with the glossy promise of technology: 'the electronic town hall.'" Perot's idea of a government fostering a "national conversation" between itself and the people is, indeed, an "old dream" for America. It has enjoyed several periods of incomplete realizations over the last two centuries. Its episodic wakefulness is often sparked by a combination of innovative information technologies and new bureaucratic twists. The debates about NREN, electronic depository libraries, and electronic town halls are only the latest incarnation. But there is some social and political bedrock that even the most enlightened public information policies will not change. These center around the opposing forces of separated federal powers and the conflict of public/private conveyance of information services and products. Richard Neustadt observed that many people are mistaken when they assume that the "constitutional convention of 1787 is supposed to have created a government 'of separated powers.' It did nothing of the sort. Rather, it created a government of separated institutions sharing powers." Separation was only the principal means used by the Founders to reach their political ends. A careful review of the Federalist Papers reveals a complicated web of public and private obligations that, taken together, were supposed to break the back of any powerful majority. This majority power was to be broken on the hard stone of individual liberties and organized private interests that act apart from one another and at the same time work together. When you listen to the nineteenth century discussions which led to the creation of the present depository library system, advocates clearly stated that a distributed system of public information "centers" would "inform" individual citizens. Acting on this "public knowledge," these citizens would be able to make effective political decisions at both the local and national level. This shared responsibility includes the demand for a rational bureaucratic solution to meet the government's information distribution needs. Several critical constitutional provisions call for constant communication between the executive and legislative branches. This organic regime of public information is further reinforced through the rights embodied in the first amendment: the freedom of speech and print, as well as the right to peaceable assembly and petition. From the opening legislative session in 1789, Congress and the President struggled to ensure that their "journals" and "reports" would be properly produced, managed, and distributed by agents of government. At the same time, the civil rights of free speech and print ensured a continuous fractious discussion regarding the performance of public officials and the effectiveness of government programs. As Denton and Wood observed in their discussion of politics and the public trust: "Politics naturally invites negative and positive judgement. Because the exercise of power involves the distribution of rewards, money, and sanctions, and because we must necessarily consider the motives of political agents, informed criticism is to be expected and encouraged. To talk about 'value free' or 'nonpartisan' politics is as futile as searching the calendar for a weekend with two Saturdays." The enduring necessity for a public record, public debate, and an open private marketplace of ideas sets into motion a series of policy choices that would, ultimately, fail to satisfy any of the entangled political and social needs for public information. Since 1946, one of these important policy choices for the public distribution of information has been the GPO. However, this agency's effectiveness has depended on the relative potence of GPO's nineteenth century administrative and technological legacy in a political world reformed by the speed and complexity of electronic computers and telecommunications. The ebb and flow of power concentration enjoyed by either federal branch usually came at the expense of the other. The GPO was initially conceived as a neutral agency to serve the printing and publication needs of the entire federal government. However, because it was created during a period when Congress was at a peak of political influence, it also empowered its Joint Committee on Printing with both legislative and executive oversight of the nation's public printing regulations. This legislative control of an executive function would become a constant irritation between the two branches. Throughout the twentieth century GPO would lose its neutrality and become increasingly identified as a legislative agency. Since the end of the Second World War, this organizational ambiguity would prove to be a major obstruction in GPO's proposals and efforts to take advantage of the technology and opportunities of the information age. The organization of American federal government, as reflected through the lens of its agencies and bureaus, reveals an intricate latticework of institutional relationships and understandings that support this a complicated political conversation. William Greider calls this the democratic "connective tissue" between the governors and the governed. He says that its "central virtue ... has been the capacity for self correction." He explains further that "... a democratic governance is able to adjust to new realities because it is compelled to listen to many voices and, sooner or later, react to what people see and express. In the American experience, the governing system has usually found a way to pull back eventually from extreme swings or social impasse and to start off in new directions. Not perfectly, perhaps not right away, but in time it did fitfully respond. As American democracy evolved, multiple balance wheels and self-correcting mechanisms were put into place that encourage this. They promise stability, but they also leave space for invention and new ideas, reform and change." The future of depository libraries depends on the beat and measure of these "multiple balance wheels and self-correcting mechanisms." GPO represents only one bureaucratic embodiment of federal printing and publishing policies. Its legislative existence rest on two centuries of formal and informal attempts to produce and distribute public information. Indeed, as Greider observed, the constitution's organic structure creates an information forum of time and space designed to encourage this kind of public reflection. It is up to us to decide if depository libraries still have a place in this forum. We must think carefully on how we respond to these latest challenges to the depository system. The fiscal restrictions and rapidly developing information technologies demand a new approach to assure the system's survival into the next century. We can no longer rely on Washington to maintain the lines of democracy and communication that activate this country's civic participation. If we choose to fight for our survival, we must begin a grass-roots revolution to rightfully reclaim the traditional DLP strengths within the modern advantages of the national information infrastructure touted by so many in Washington. If we choose not to fight, or let others choose for us, then we will deserve what ever place is allotted to us in this evolving public forum. Do not let the collective weight of our individual fiscal and physical burdens, the internal/external policy squabbles within the Washington beltway, or the smooth seductions of the private information industry, blind us to the one searing obligation and its enduring responsibility. Free access to government information must remain a public right, remain a public good, and remain a true belief. We have the tools and collective wisdom to make it happen for another hundred years. ******************************************************************* GOVDOC-L posting from Gary Corwell, Chair, Depository Library Council Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 22:15:15 CDT From: Gary Cornwell Subject: Keep those comments coming ==================================================================== Folks: Just a note of thanks to everyone who has taken the time to comment to me on both the Dupont Circle Report and the Council's report on Alternatives for Restructuring the Depository Library Program. The ideas, suggestions, and questions that you all have raised are exactly the kind of input needed to keep these documents moving forward. I wish that I had the time to personally respond to each of you, but that is simply not possible. Be assured however, that your comments and ideas will be incorporated into future drafts of the documents and the discussions about them. Indeed, comments that we have received so far will be addressed at the upcoming Depository Library Council meeting (May 17). Comments received after the Council meeting will be addressed in subsequent meetings, mailings, and discussions at other Library conferences around the country. Also following the Council meeting, I will organize and synthesize the various ideas and guestions you all are submitting and post them in an issue of the "DCR Reporter" so that you can see what other people are saying. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'm going to say it once again: change is coming! This is not just perception or speculation. It is inevitable. Now is the time for action and vision. There is no question that libraries have different needs within the Depository Library Program. Meeting those needs in a cost-effective manner, while at the same time moving the Program forward so that there is freedom of information choice for people in the information environment, is our challenge. Ready or not, when the GPO Access bill becomes law, GPO will be firmly entrenched in the online distribution of government information. As a result, they will need to make some difficult decisions regarding the allocation of staff and resources. In particular, duplication of distribution will become increasingly difficult to maintain and the chosen form of distribution may be electronic. This alone will have profound effects on everyone. At the present time, the two "reports" that you are commenting on represent one of best avenues we have for communicating both our ideas and needs to GPO and the Congress. So thanks for taking the time to comment and please keep them coming. **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** GARY CORNWELL PHONE: (904) 392-0366 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA LIBRARIES FAX: (904) 392-7251 DOCUMENTS DEPARTMENT BITNET: GARCORN@NERVM LIBRARY WEST INTERNET: GARCORN@NERVM.NERDC.UFL.EDU GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 32611 ************************************************************************* CLARIFICATION ON "DEADLINES" Many people have expressed concern about not being able to submit comments before the May 17 meeting of the Depository Library Council. DON'T WORRY - YOU WON'T BE LEFT OUT!! The DLC meeting is just the first in a series of "deadlines" that will continue throughout the summer. Those who attended the Federal Depository Library Conference in April had the first opportunity to respond to the issues presented in the Dupont Circle documents and the Council report on Alternatives for Restructuring the Depository Library Program. These issues will again be addressed at the May 17 Council meeting. In addition, discussion meetings are being planned for the annual national conferences of ALA, SLA, and AALL. Each of these meetings will provide opportunities for members of those organizations to give feedback and input on the issues and questions facing the Depository Library Program. Local, state, and regional associations and groups are also working to incorporate discussion sessions into their meetings throughout the summer -- some have already met! For information on if/when a discussion meeting is being held in your state, please contact your regional depository library or a member of the Dupont Circle Group. We will try to report on the results of these meetings throughout the summer in an effort to keep you abreast of the progress of the discussions. Our ultimate goal will be to coalesce the comments, input, and suggestions received into a "final report," due sometime in mid-October 1993. Your continued input is absolutely critical to any success there is for improving the Depository Library Program. Comments from all concerned groups and individuals are vital to this process. Please send your comments to Gary Corwell or any member of the Dupont Circle Group. Thank you! ******************************************************************* The members of the Dupont Circle Group are: Gary Cornwell, University of Florida, and Chair, Depository Library Council garcorn@nervm.bitnet Julia Wallace, University of Minnesota, and Chair, ALA Government Documents Roundtable (GODORT) j-wall@vm1.spcs.umn.edu Duncan Aldrich, University of Nevada, Reno duncan@equinox.unr.edu Tom Andersen, California State Library gps@water.ca.gov Diane Garner, Harvard University dxg@harvarda.harvard.edu Carol Gordon, Milwaukee Public Library wilson@convex.csd.uwm.edu Steve Hayes, Notre Dame University hayes.2@nd.edu Sally Holterhoff, Valparaiso University School of Law sholt@exodus.valpo.edu Linda Kennedy, University of California, Davis lmkennedy@ucdavis.edu Ridley Kessler, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill kessler.davis@mhs.unc.edu Melissa Lamont, University of Connecticut hblad140@uconnvm.uconn.edu Sandee McAninch, University of Kentucky mcaninch@ukcc.bitnet Kay Melvin, Patent and Trademark Office 703-308-4472 Daniel O'Mahony, Brown University ap201159@brownvm.brown.edu John Shuler, Colgate University jshuler@colgate.edu Jack Sulzer, Pennsylvania State University jhs@psulias.psu.edu Susan Tulis, American Association of Law Libraries tulis@guvax.georgetown.edu Carol Watts, NOAA/National Envir. Satellite & Data Info. Services watts@nodc2.nodc.noaa.gov Dupont Circle Reporter/Number 6/May 13, 1993 ####################################################################### From @PSUVM.PSU.EDU:owner-govdoc-l@PSUVM.PSU.EDU Thu Jun 10 19:54:47 1993 Message-Id: <9306102354.AA17211@a.cni.org> Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1993 18:10:09 CDT Reply-To: Discussion of Government Document Issues Sender: Discussion of Government Document Issues From: "Daniel P. O'Mahony (Documents)" Subject: Dupont Circle Reporter, No. 7 To: Multiple recipients of list GOVDOC-L ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- THE FOLLOWING IS BEING POSTED ON GOVDOC-L, MAPS-L, AND LAW-LIB. ----------------------------------------------------------------- | T H E D U P O N T C I R C L E R E P O R T E R | | | | An Informal Newsletter for the Federal | | Depository Library Community | | June 10, 1993 No. 7 | ----------------------------------------------------------------- CONTENTS: * GOVDOC-L posting by Gary Cornwell * Summary of Comments on DCG Documents * Highlights of Depository Library Council Meeting * GPO Access Bill Signed into Law ----------------------------------------------------------------- Posted on GOVDOC-L on 8 Jun 1993 by Gary Cornwell Re: Question for the Dupont Circle Group Folks: I take full responsibility for the comments to the DCG report not yet being posted to Govdoc-l. There has been an excellent response from the community and that it part of the reason that nothing has shown up. To date, about 100 responses have been received to the report...the first 50 of which were available at the Depository Library Council meeting. The problem with posting all the responses to the List is there is simply no way to key in all that data. The idea was (and still is) to post a summary of the comments to Govdoc-L and to make the full folder containing all the comments available at ALA and to any other group wishing to use them. Without making excuses, I am just now getting unburied from all the things left over from the Council meeting and began work on the comment sheets yesterday (honest, I did). Several individuals and groups provided several pages of comments not only to the DCG report, but also on the DLP in general. If possible, I would recommend these people post there comments to the List...I think it would be of real value to the community. Where we go from here is tentative at best, but one idea that was knocked around at the Council meeting was to have a meeting in the Fall...perhaps in conjunction with the Fall Council meeting (especially if it was held outside of D.C.) where depository librarians could meet to turn the Dupont Circle Report into final recommendations or at a minimum a couple of acceptable options. I am still hearing from Congress that they want to know what we want. This meeting could then be followed in the Spring by a larger meeting of all the stakeholders in the program. ***The difference in the 2 meetings being the first is our chance to say what we want...and mechanisms seem to be in place to get that information out once we do; and the second meeting would be a chance to try and get consensus from all involved.**** With regard to how we get all this to people not attending a library meeting or not on Govdoc-l I don't have a real good answer. Part of this goes back to comments I made in Denver regarding the need for an independent documents group...certainly this could be a function of theirs. Mailing labels are available from GPO, but they obviously cannot pay mailing costs to get DCG Reporters or comment sheets out to everyone. The Regionals were very receptive to getting initial reports out to libraries in their states, but we have been reluctant to ask them to do weekly mailings. I'm not sure that this is a role of GODORT, but their meeting is coming up and if people feel strongly enough, I would urge them to ask GODORT Steering to fund getting information from the DCG (or any other independent group that might be looking toward restructuring/ improving the Program) out to the people. Basically, I'm very excited about the responses that we have received and the interest that people are expressing in the future of the DLP. Based on what I've seen the last 6 months, I'm also pleased at the prospect of having a meeting this Fall. It appears that the time is right to get something accomplished...both in long-range planning and in short term steps which might allow the time and flexibility for loftier goals. Well, I'll quit rambling and get back to the comment sheets with hope of getting something posted before weeks end. In the meantime, I welcome any comments or ideas regarding anything I've mentioned. Thanks. ************************************************************************ SUMMARY OF COMMENTS ON DUPONT CIRCLE DOCUMENTS From the outset, the primary goal of the Dupont Circle Group was to prepare a paper that would prompt community discussion. Before any reorganization of the Depository Library Program could take place, it was the Group's contention that librarians and other interested stakeholders must have an opportunity to comment on what aspects of the Program were important to them. Based on the overwhelming number of comments received during the month following the release of the report, it appears that the Group's primary goal was met and that it is time to begin analyzing the comments and moving toward some final recommendations. To date, about 100 comment sheets have been received in response to the report. While the majority are individual responses, many are from state documents groups or similar consortiums. With very little exception (less than 5%) there is strong consensus that changes must be made to the Depository Library Program. As expected, there is not a similar consensus as to what those changes should be. There are, however, some common threads that run through all the comment sheets. Indeed, while the majority of respondents were academic libraries, a preliminary analysis of the type of libraries responding to the survey seems to indicate a ratio proportional to the various types of libraries in the Program. And, at least on the major issues, the libraries seem to be in agreement. At first glance, there appears to be universal support of the mission and goals statement presented in the report: "The mission of a federal information access program is to make government information freely available in usable formats to meet the diverse needs of multiple publics." Even one of the critics who felt there was no need to change the Program had no problem supporting this mission statement. However, a closer look at the comment sheets indicates that this statement might be too broad, or that at a minimum it should be amended with the following caveats: First, it must be understood that there will be multiple providers of information in the future and that a "Federal Information Access Program" need not be the only mechanism for information delivery. Second, and this was a frequently made comment, unless the program is adequately funded there is no way that any of this is going to work. Furthermore, without adequate funding either the goals and objectives of the program are going to have to be re-negotiated or the program itself is going to have to be downsized. Finally, there was a strong sentiment that libraries must do a better job of evaluating the services that they are offering. If indeed these are the goals of the program, libraries must devise a mechanism to measure their ability to meet the needs of the information using public. There was also widespread support (although begrudging) for the rather bleak "Ghost of DLP Future" scenario presented in the "Discussion Draft." While some felt this scenario might be overly pessimistic, virtually everyone agreed that it was a distinct possibility, and many felt the Program might not last five more years as currently structured. As an indication of how strongly the community felt on this matter, when asked to rate the "status quo" against two other program models (on a scale of 1 to 3, with 1 being the most favored) the "status quo" averaged a 2.54 rating as compared to a 1.65 and 1.75 rating for the other models. Similarly, when asked who should be the governing body for a revised Program, GPO finished last of the three options listed (GPO for all formats, GPO for paper distribution in combination with another agency for electronic products, or a new independent agency). The program model that gained the most support was the system of Government Information Access Centers (GIAC) designed to provide libraries a flexible, multi-faceted access system to government information resources. There was also considerable support for the model put forth by ARL several years ago which consists of Basic Service, Intermediate Service, and Full Service Center libraries. Many libraries felt the most important aspect of the entire document was the interim short-term proposals and hoped that at least certain aspects of them could be implemented quickly. At the Spring 1993 Depository Library Council meeting the DLC considered the future structure of the Program and the alternatives presented in the Dupont Circle documents. While no consensus was reached on a future structure of the DLP, Council concurred with the library community that the short term goals as presented by the Dupont Circle Group should be given high priority. In their recommendations to the Acting Public Printer, Council made the following short-term recommendations: Council recommends a moratorium on the establishment of new depository libraries. Minimum technical requirements for existing depository libraries should be developed. In addition, it is the opinion of Council that libraries should be given a reasonable amount of time to meet these requirements. Failure to comply with these requirements after a reasonable period of time has passed should be treated as non-compliance and a major infraction of the rules for depository libraries. The depository library community should be surveyed (with all deliberate speed) regarding potential interest in the following two ideas for short-term restructuring of the Depository Library Program: A) Basic Service Centers - a library could select a core collection but have no opportunity for other selections or changes. This would reduce overhead and maintenance for the library and reduce distribution costs for GPO. B) Cooperative regionals or multi-state regionals where the terms and conditions of being a regional are different from the current structure. For example, Regionals might not have to select 100% or might not be required to retain all material forever. Council supports the recommendation made by the Dupont Circle Group that the focus of the inspection program be changed to place more emphasis on education and training. In addition, Council believes that inspectors should rotate within GPO as ombudsman to communicate with libraries on depository issues. Interestingly enough, one area that seemed to split the community was how rapidly the Program moves toward electronic dissemination of government information. (With the passage of the GPO Access Law, the question no longer appears to be "if" but rather "how"). The fact that this notion split the community is not surprising, but that there was no pattern among library type as to how they felt was intriguing. For example, many small public libraries argued that the Program needs to move full speed into electronics, while others felt they were nowhere near ready for a shift of this magnitude. These same extremes were echoed by each of the various library types responding to the survey. This division is perhaps one of the reasons for the support of the "GIAC" model that allows libraries different selection options. A FOLDER CONTAINING ALL THE RESPONSES TO THE DUPONT CIRCLE REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE AT ALA. This material is also available to any group wishing to use it in there discussions of restructuring the DLP. Groups wishing to use the comments in their deliberations should contact Gary Cornwell at the University of Florida Libraries. The next step in this process is to continue discussion of restructuring of the DLP at the meetings of the various library organizations. Since most of these will be held this summer, it is hoped that additional comments can be received and analyzed by the Fall. Tentative plans call for an open meeting of the Dupont Circle Group to be held in the Fall to produce final recommendations for a revised DLP from the depository librarians' viewpoint. This would be followed in the Spring by a conference of all the major stakeholders in the Depository Library Program. GARY CORNWELL PHONE: (904) 392-0366 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA LIBRARIES FAX: (904) 392-7251 DOCUMENTS DEPARTMENT BITNET: GARCORN@NERVM LIBRARY WEST INTERNET: GARCORN@NERVM.NERDC.UFL.EDU GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 32611 ************************************************************************ HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DEPOSITORY LIBRARY COUNCIL SPRING MEETING May 17-18, 1993, Washington, DC The Depository Library Council focused its Spring 1993 meeting on a discussion of its draft document, "Alternatives for Restructuring the Depository Library Program" (DLP). The draft report does not come to any conclusions or recommendations, rather it discusses the history and objectives of the DLP, lists the assumptions Council was working under when discussing restructuring of the program, and outlines some alternative scenarios for the program. Council suggested five possible reasons for why they were even talking about restructuring the program. The changing nature of information dissemination, moving from print to electronic is one reason. The second reason is a response to the economic crisis surrounding the program. A third reason is addressing the fact that there is a better way, a better vision for disseminating government information. A paradigm shift to a user driven system is the fourth reason. Lastly, with all the electronic initiatives taking place right now, restructuring may be needed to redefine the depository library's role in the new information environment. While it might be true that changing formats and a better vision may be upper most in many people's minds, the economic crisis is still a large factor that can't be dismissed. Council then addressed the question of "What are the values/goals of the DLP?" Seven such values/goals were identified and Council felt that it was possible to define a role for depository libraries in each of them. 1. Informed electorate - government accountability. 2. Economic benefits - building better economic potential or opportunities. 3. Education 4. Intermediaries - librarians know what information is out there and how to find it. Libraries serve as information utilities. 5. Neutral sites - libraries serve as the boy/girl scouts of the information arena. Libraries don't have an axe to grind, there is no spin put on the information. As Senator Kerrey said, "People trust libraries." 6. Libraries are the heart or focal points of communities and therefore the obvious link to get government information to citizens. 7. Libraries serve as a way of sharing information - between federal government, state governments, and citizens. Assumptions The assumptions in the draft report now read as follows: 1. A DLP should and will continue to be a vital link between the citizens and the agencies of American government. 2. As currently structured, the DLP is floundering so badly that its very existence is threatened. The Depository Library Council believes that significant restructuring of the Program is needed to ensure it future viability and to ensure that it will continue to meet the objectives for which it was established. 3. The burdens on the Regional Libraries are causing a breakdown in the system. The Depository Library Council believes that it may not be necessary for 52 regionals to keep everything in perpetuity, and that other aspects of the regionals' responsibilities may need to be re-examined. 4. The cost of running the program is increasing faster that the willingness/ability of Congress to provide the funds. If this pattern continues, the program needs to find ways to leverage its resources. 5. The DLP will contain both print and electronic information for the foreseeable future. 6. As a result of the increased availability of electronic information via the INTERNET and other sources, user expectations concerning access to all forms of information will change and increase. 7. Information professionals, in their roles as intermediaries, will continue o be a key part of the program. 8. In the new information environment, there will be many more diverse points of access to information. The traditional library will be once centralized place for information, but there will be others as well. 9. New laws, regulations, and information systems, and related changes in how government information is collected, maintained, and disseminated will have a major impact on the depository library program. 10. Some libraries will be partners in the change; some will not. While discussing assumption one, it was questioned whether we should say depository libraries or just libraries. Is this assumption too limiting for how we envision the future? Libraries will serve a vital link in the transition, but depository libraries may be "A" link, not "THE" link. It was also pointed out that the Dupont Circle Group did not make the assumption that the DLP will exist as we now know it. Does Council really mean GPO's DLP or rather a system of active government distribution in a systematic way of its information resources through libraries? Additionally, it was argued that the DLP will continue to be a vital link because not everything is going to be electronic and the archival function of libraries is essential. If Council can agree with the DLP benefits statements (both to the public and to federal agencies) of the Dupont Circle Group, then assumption one is true. It may not be the DLP as we now know it, but there will be some designated group of libraries to act as intermediaries between the source of government information and the end users. The alternative scenarios for a restructured program cover a wide spectrum and are the result of brainstorming. Some require major changes to the program as it now stands; some are minor changes. Some might be done in conjunction with others; some would stand alone. Scenarios included are: 1) multiple service levels, 2) direct support model, 3) creation of a national collection of last resort, 4) creation of a network of super-regionals, 5) creation of a system of electronic depositories, 6) require libraries to meet minimum technical guidelines to be full participants in the system, 7) create a system of subject-based regionals, 8) restructure DLP to recognize new role for depositories when electronic information comes through a network or a single point of access, 9) rename the program to recognize changes brought on by the era of electronic information, and 10) downsize the program to meet budgetary constraints. The scenarios can be grouped into three clusters - economically oriented, access to electronic, and relationships between different kinds of depositories. Downsizing was the first economically oriented scenario addressed. Downsizing means two different things - reducing the number of libraries in the system and also reducing the number of items selected by libraries. There was a general feeling among some Council members that many smaller libraries feel that the administrative overhead is killing them and might force them to drop out of the Program. Picking up on the Basic Service Centers outlined in the Dupont Circle Report, it was suggested that some libraries might be willing to receive a predetermined core set of items in exchange for different overhead responsibilities (i.e.,. no inspections, no disposition lists, etc.) Just selecting less material does not reduce the overhead burden. Another aspect of downsizing is requiring libraries to meet some sort of minimum requirements or standards to be a depository library. But what exactly is meant when we say minimum requirements or standards? Are we talking about overhead responsibilities, computer workstations, shelving, staffing, or service? And are we trying to increase or decrease the standards? In some instances we may be trying to decrease the overhead burden so the quality of service can be increased. Equipment requirements might be used to convince a director of the need for such equipment in order to stay in the Program. But lowering the overhead burdens may result in the Program not do what it was intended to do by Congress. Reducing the number of libraries in the system raises a whole host of other questions/concerns. The Council report states that one of the strengths of the Program is that depository libraries are in every Congressional district - can we turn around and start pulling libraries out? How do you handle redistricting and grandfathering in which produces more than two libraries per Congressional district? The law currently doesn't allow for undesignating a depository library. While it is true that reducing the number of libraries in the Program would address the economic concerns, it may not address the other reasons for restructuring. If there are two or three depository libraries in one district, do they all need to be of the same service level? Can you restructure so you have different criteria for law libraries, federal libraries, etc.? Or different criteria levels dependent on the number of items selected? Or could you require that all the libraries in one Congressional district can't collectively select more than 125% of all available items (this assumes Regionals are excluded in this formula)? The other economically oriented scenario is the direct support model. This model has as its basis the notion that customer satisfaction or empowerment from the perspective of the consumer is the best measure of success and the best place to control the system. It relies on knowing how much each library costs the system and how much money is available to support them. Each library then gets to chose how to spend its allocation - either on products and services from GPO or from any other provider. This system won't get GPO any more money, but does enable libraries to feel more ownership in the system. There were many questions about this model. Can GPO, would GPO give this much control to libraries? The additional administrative aspects to implement this are astronomical. How do you assign value to items - by publications, by item numbers, or what? How do you determine the base budget for each library? How do you know when a library has spent all their money? How do you allow for new publications? What benefits does this system provide to users? Who is going to take the less glitzy stuff and how will librarians know who has what? This model is mainly designed for when GPO doesn't have enough money. If GPO is covering all the costs and everyone is getting what they need, then this proposal isn't necessary. Four of the Council scenarios fit into the electronic access cluster: 1) GPO as the primary point of access, 2) electronic depositories, 3) minimum technical requirements, and 4) renaming the program to recognize changes brought on by the era of electronic information. Before discussing these scenarios Council addressed the question of "What is the role of GPO in providing access to electronic government information?" Is it limited to tangible products and services as is suggested in one of the Dupont Circle Group models? Should GPO concentrate on the print products, the things they do well, and look for another source for depository libraries to receive the electronic information, so they don't have to split resources to get into a whole new ballgame? There are many who feel that the time for central coordinated distribution has passed. Agencies have information out there on the Internet, and WAIS servers. Should GPO's role in electronics be having a locator or access system? Is it wrong to say that depository libraries are going to be able to fulfill their mission with only online sources from GPO in the future? Or should GPO act as an intermediary to acquire electronic services for the DLP rather than bring them up themselves, build its own computer system or tie into a supercomputer in the sky? Many believe that GPO should serve a procurement role on behalf of the DLP. One way for GPO to do this is for GPO to become a GOPHER site, gopher into other federal data sources, or if necessary, telnet out to get into other sources. Or instead of GPO serving as a central gateway, should you have electronic depositories serving as nodes themselves, serving a more distributed function? Although Council never answered the question as to whether GPO should be in the business of providing access to electronic government information online, the answer is in the GPO Access bill. Once it becomes law, the specific provisions as to what GPO should be doing are outlined in the bill. If GPO doesn't do a good job of fulfilling the requirements of the Access bill, the question is a moot one because GPO won't be involved in it anyway. Discussion of the third cluster of scenarios, the relationships between different types of depositories, was incorporated into the discussion of the Dupont Circle Group (DCG) document. In talking about the DCG document, the discussion moved from GPO's role in all of this to the actual structure of the dissemination program. It was the general consensus of Council that the status quo was not a viable option. With regards to Service Model 1 - Federal Information Service Centers, it was decided that the depository community should be surveyed to determine if enough interest exists for GPO to pursue this as a viable option. While it was decided that more than one core collection would be necessary (i.e. law, sci/tech, general), the incentives would still be reduced administrative overhead. The core list would not be restricted by format. The intermediate service center seems to be the model of the average selective depository. What makes the intermediate service centers unique? How are they different from full service centers? It would appear that intermediates would serve as the linkage or transition between full and basic service centers. It became clear that intermediate service centers are very hard to describe since they cover a number of different people and collections. The full service center seems to get into the role of regionals. What is the incentive for a library to be a full service center? Should full service centers act as libraries of last resort? It was hard to see full service centers as separate from regionals or subject based libraries. It was suggested that shared regionals might be the way to go - does every regional have to get everything? Or could 2-3 libraries share that responsibility for a given number of states? It would be nice to report that Council came to a conclusion and recommendation for how the DLP should be restructured. Unfortunately they did not. While they may have answered some questions, they probably raised additional ones. The discussion continues - please come to ALA and AALL prepared to discuss this important topic. Submitted by: Susan E. Tulis DLC Secretary tulis@guvax.georgetown.edu 202-662-9200 ******************************************************************** GPO ACCESS BILL SIGNED INTO LAW!! On Tuesday, June 6, 1993, President Clinton signed into law the Government Printing Office Electronic Information Access Enhancement Act of 1993 [Public Law 103-40, 107 Stat. 112 (1993), 44 U.S.C. 4101- 4104 (1993)]. Provisions of the law require GPO to: (1) create and maintain a directory of federal publications in electronic format; (2) provide online computer access to the directory as well as the Congressional Record, the Federal Register, and possibly other documents; and (3) operate an electronic storage facility for the information provided through the online system. GPO is authorized to charge reasonable fees not to exceed the incremental cost of dissemination, but the law permits the system to be made available to depository libraries without charge. While the law signifies GPO's responsibility for disseminating electronic government information, no additional appropriations were authorized to implement the provisions of the act. Dupont Circle Reporter, Number 7, June 10, 1993 ####################################################################### From @PSUVM.PSU.EDU:owner-govdoc-l@PSUVM.PSU.EDU Tue Jun 22 00:18:20 1993 Message-Id: <9306220418.AA29712@a.cni.org> Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1993 20:17:00 CDT Reply-To: Discussion of Government Document Issues Sender: Discussion of Government Document Issues From: "Daniel P. O'Mahony (Documents)" Subject: Dupont Circle Reporter, No. 8 To: Multiple recipients of list GOVDOC-L THE FOLLOWING IS BEING POSTED ON GOVDOC-L, MAPS-L, AND LAW-LIB. ----------------------------------------------------------------- | T H E D U P O N T C I R C L E R E P O R T E R | | | | An Informal Newsletter for the Federal | | Depository Library Community | | June 21, 1993 No. 8 | ----------------------------------------------------------------- CONTENTS: * DLP Budget: Trying to Do More with Less (Selected statistics on the FDLP) * GOVDOC-L Posting: Snapshot of Selected ARL Member Contributions to the FDLP ----------------------------------------------------------------- THE DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM'S BUDGET: TRYING TO DO MORE WITH LESS For any librarian familiar with the Federal Depository Library Program, it will come as no surprise to hear that the DLP has not been adequately funded over the years to meet the needs and operations of the program. What may be surprising, however, is that this gap is widening and the demands being placed on the program continue to expand. In FY 1993, for example, GPO estimated it would need $28.5 million to operate the Depository Library Program. (DLP funds are part of GPO's Salaries and Expenses appropriation.) GPO received $25.3 million in appropriations -- $3.3 million short of its needs. Thus, GPO was forced to implement a variety of "cuts" in services and format changes to make up for the budget differential. Placed in historical context, the DLP fares even worse. GPO's S&E budget has gone from $23.5 million in 1980 to $27.1 million in 1992. What appears to be a 15 percent increase in appropriations is in fact, when allowing for inflation, a 40 PERCENT DECREASE in GPO funds. During this same time period, 54 additional libraries entered the DLP. Further, the introduction of electronic formats has added more service and production responsibilities to GPO. Thus, GPO is being required to do much more with considerably less. The continued proliferation of electronic government information and the need to provide access to online systems will only continue to place additional strains on the system. While the passage of the GPO Access law is a major step in the development of the Depository Library Program, no additional appropriations have been authorized for the implementation of this act. Thus, at a time when GPO is being forced to make cuts in traditional services due to budgetary shortfalls, it must now try to implement a whole new area of services--with no additional funds! Below are selected statistical tables which present data on various aspects of the Depository Library Program. GPO APPROPRIATIONS FOR SALARIES AND EXPENSES Fiscal Total S&E Percent Year Approp. ($) Change ------------------------------------------- 1986 24,993,000 1987 23,728,000 -4.8 1988 24,662,000 3.9 1989 25,155,000 -2.0 1990 24,214,000 -3.7 1991 25,745,000 6.3 1992 27,082,000 5.2 1993 29,082,000 7.4 Percent change in S&E approp. (current dollars), 1986-92: 8.4 Percent change in S&E approp. (constant 1986 dollars), 1986-92: -16.4 FY 1993 PRINTING AND BINDING COSTS FOR SELECTED TITLES Estimated Number Cost per Item (paper) P&B Cost ($) Copies Library ($) ------------------------------------------------------------------- Hearings & Cmte. Prints 1,307,485 365 3,582 U.S. Cong. Serial Set (bd) 1,276,532 430 2,969 Code of Federal Reg. 767,158 1149 668 Monthly Catalog 300,960 1254 240 Statutes at Large 229,021 1347 170 Cong. Reports (slip) 149,785 363 413 Cumulative Index Medicus 138,728 794 175 U.S. Reports 97,751 1281 76 Cong. Documents (slip) 92,877 385 241 Treaties & Int'l Acts (bd) 79,009 1196 66 Cong. Record Index/Digest 70,980 910 78 Foreign Relations of the U.S. 47,057 798 59 Public Papers of the President 46,179 1331 35 OTHER PRINTING AND BINDING COSTS Average unit costs for all depository items (FY 1993 P&B estimates): Paper: $ 1.10 Microfiche (converted from hard copy): 0.275 Microfiche (duplication from agency silvers): 0.06 CD-ROMs (disk replication, excl. software license): 2.00 Diskettes: 1.25 DISTRIBUTION COSTS United Parcel Service: $ 3.25/box (60% of volume) U.S. Postal Service: 11.50/box (40% of volume) MOST POPULAR ITEMS SELECTED BY DEPOSITORY LIBRARIES (11/1991) * Item No. Libs. Rank Number Selecting Title ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1 0577 1396 U.S. Government Manual 2 0154-B 1396 Census of Pop & Housing Users Guide 3 0150 1395 Statistical Abstract of the U.S. State & Metro Area Data Book 4 0992 1386 Congressional Directory 5 0151 1385 County & City Data Book USA Statistics in Brief 6 0839-A-3 1368 National Zip Code Directory 7 0770 1331 Monthly Labor Review 8 0991 1327 United States Code 9 0853-A-1 1326 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 10 0576 1320 U.S. Statutes at Large 11 0853 1314 Budget of the United States 12 0574-A 1304 Public Papers of the President 13 0577-A 1303 Weekly Compilation of Pres. Papers 14 0722 1298 Uniform Crime Reports 15 0768-C-2 1289 Occupational Outlook Hankbook 16 1061-K-1 1289 Real Estate Asset Inventory 17 0140-B 1287 Congressional District Atlas 18 0572 1286 CFR Index and Finding Aids 19 0864 1284 Dispatch 20 0854-I 1281 Federal Info. Locator System (FILS) * This ranking excludes Item numbers 1004-E, 0556-C, and 0552-B (items from GPO specifically related to administering the DLP). LIBRARIES IN THE DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM Fiscal Libs. Net Fiscal Libs. Net Year in DLP Change Year in DLP Change ----------------------------- --------------------------- 1973 1121 1983 1381 14 1974 1152 31 1984 1391 10 1975 1170 18 1985 1390 -1 1976 1201 31 1986 1394 4 1977 1217 16 1987 1393 -1 1978 1231 14 1988 1394 1 1979 1329 98 ** 1989 1395 1 1980 1351 22 1990 1398 3 1981 1353 2 1991 1400 2 1982 1367 14 1992 1405 5 ** P.L. 95-261 passed, providing for addition of law school libraries. Net change (1973-1992) in libraries in DLP (number): 284 Net change (1973-1992) in libraries in DLP (percent): 25.3 Average number of libraries added per year (1973-1992): 15 Average number of libraries added per year (1980-1992): 6 DEPOSITORY LIBRARIES BY TYPE (January 1993) Avg. Item Type Number Percent Selection (%) --------------------------------------------------------------- Academic General 4 year 699 49.8 34 Public 291 20.7 23 Academic Law 157 11.2 12 Community College 67 4.8 12 Federal Agency 55 3.9 12 State Library 47 3.3 27 State Court 36 2.6 5 Special Library 28 2.0 7 Federal Court 20 1.4 4 Service Academy 5 0.4 18 ******************************************************************* Posted on GOVDOC-L on Monday, 17 May 1993 From: Pru Adler, Assoc. of Research Libraries RE: ARL Survey of Documents Departments SNAPSHOP OF SELECTED ARL MEMBER CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM (2/16/93) To gauge the investments that ARL depository libraries make in providing access to government information, ARL conducted a survey of its U.S. depository members -- 93 of ARL's 120 members are depository libraries. Respondents included both regional depository libraries (those required by law to collect and maintain permanently all non-classified government information available via the depository program) and selective depository libraries (those libraries selecting only those resources of interest to their community of users). The survey confirmed that each ARL participating institution makes significant contributions in personnel, equipment, facilities, and resources (including resources purchased beyond those provided by GPO such as commercial online services) to ensure that citizens across the United States have effective access to federal resources. The survey found that: Each regional library invested approximately $306,000, and each selective institution provided an estimated $280,000 in FY 1991-92 in support of the federal depository library program. These figures do not include facilities management, overhead, or storage costs. The FY 1991-92 figures are consistent with earlier data collected minus the facilities management, storage, and overhead costs. The survey was designed to provide a snapshot of the resources that ARL depository libraries invest and the costs they incur in receiving, maintaining, providing access to, and preserving federal information resources. The survey also gathered data from participating libraries concerning use of the collection. The data provided are for FY 1991-1992 and the findings represent selected costs of participating in the program for one year by each reporting institution. REGIONAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARIES Twenty-two of the 53 (two of the regional libraries share responsibilities with other libraries in their region) federal regional depository libraries are ARL institutions. Data for 20 of those libraries are reported in this survey. These libraries are required by law to collect, maintain permanently, and provide access to all government information products and services available via the GPO program. The survey found that in FY 1991-92 participating libraries: spent a minimum of $306,000 in support of the federal depository program, not including facilities, storage, shelving, and related costs. invested approximately $113,000 in professional staff costs and $99,000 in non-professional staff including student assistants. spent approximately $58,000 to support commercial electronic products and services such as Legi-Slate and MARCIVE. spent an estimated $19,000 for microforms equipment; $8,000 for collection maintenance and processing equipment; and $9,000 for electronic products and services equipment to support access to services such as the Electronic Bulletin Board from the Department of Commerce, Internet access, and to numerous government-generated CD-ROMs. answered on average well over 26,000 reference questions and circulated over 19,000 items to other libraries in their states. Five libraries reported circulating an average of 45,000 items per year. SELECTIVE DEPOSITORY LIBRARIES On average, the acquisition rate for ARL selective depository libraries is 70% of the material offered through the program. The survey found that in FY 1991-92 each ARL selective depository library: spent an estimated $280,000 in support of the federal depository library program. invested on average of $101,000 in professional staff costs and $100,000 in non-professional staff including student assistants. spent an estimated $43,000 on commercial services to enhance processing and reference services. spent approximately $9,000 on microforms equipment; $11,000 for collection processing, and maintenance; and $17,000 on electronic products and services equipment, to support access to services such as the Electronic Bulletin Board form the Department of Commerce, Internet access, and numerous government-generated CD-ROMs. answered well over 25,000 reference questions and circulated over 20,000 items to users. Ten of the selective ARL libraries responding averaged over 51,000 items circulated in FY 1991-92. Dupont Circle Reporter/Number 8/June 21,1993 #################################################################### From @PSUVM.PSU.EDU:owner-govdoc-l@PSUVM.PSU.EDU Tue Jun 22 16:59:35 1993 Message-Id: <9306222059.AA10304@a.cni.org> Date: Tue, 22 Jun 93 16:24:08 EDT Reply-To: Discussion of Government Document Issues Sender: Discussion of Government Document Issues From: "Daniel P. O'Mahony (Documents)" Subject: Dupont Circle Reporter, No. 9 To: Multiple recipients of list GOVDOC-L THE FOLLOWING IS BEING POSTED ON GOVDOC-L, MAPS-L, AND LAW-LIB. ----------------------------------------------------------------- | T H E D U P O N T C I R C L E R E P O R T E R | | | | An Informal Newsletter for the Federal | | Depository Library Community | | June 22, 1993 No. 9 | ----------------------------------------------------------------- CONTENTS: * What Now? Is There Life After Access? The GPO Access Act and Its Implications by Jack Sulzer, Penn State University * Statement by the President on P.L. 103-40 ----------------------------------------------------------------- WHAT NOW? IS THERE LIFE AFTER ACCESS? The Government Printing Office Electronic Information Access Enhancement Act and Its Implications by Jack Sulzer, Head, General Reference, Pennsylvania State University Libraries On June 8, 1993, President Clinton signed into law the Government Printing Office Electronic Information Access Enhancement Act of 1993 (GPO/EIAEA) [PL 103-40, 107 STAT 112 (1993), 44 USC 4101-4104 (1993)]. Vigdor Shreibman, editor and publisher of the Federal Information News Syndicate (FINS), an electronic news source available over the Internet, described the signing of this law as the end of a 10 year struggle "to secure access to electronic public information for citizens." Schreibman marks the beginning of this struggle with the issuance of the 1984 report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Depository Library Access to Federal Automated Data Bases, which called for "access to Federal information in electronic form through the depository library system" (S.Rpt. 98-260). But passage of the GPO Access law also marks the end of a two year process intended to finally do something to move the Government Printing Office into the business of disseminating electronic information online. Originally called the GPO/WINDO (Wide Information Network Data Online) Act, the legislation was the brainchild of James Love, Executive Director of the Taxpayer Assets Project, a Ralph Nader organization, and was further developed and written in cooperation with the American Library Association (ALA). ALA took the draft legislation to Rep. Charles Rose (D-NC), then Chairman of the Joint Committee on Printing, who immediately took up sponsorship of the measure and introduced it on June 26, 1991. The bill was born as much out of a sense of frustration among librarians and public data users, like Love, as it was an attempt by ALA to make a proactive move in the battle over the laws governing public information and technology. The bill presented a single step, piecemeal reform rather than a sweeping omnibus approach, such as the Paperwork Reduction Act amendment bills that had proven so troublesome and abortive up to that time. Of course, in the evolution from first draft to public law, the bill changed in a number of important ways. The GPO/WINDO Bill (HR 2772, June 26, 1991) as introduced by Rose was originally envisioned by Love and ALA to provide a single point of access through a low cost gateway to all Federal online databases. It provided free access for the Depository Library Program to the "gateway." No doubt that then-Senator Albert Gore saw the importance of the relationship of the GPO/WINDO bill to his own legislation meant to enhance high performance computing in the United States and develop the next generation of computer networking by establishing the National Research and Education Network or NREN. Gore introduced the companion bill in the Senate, the GPO Gateway to Government Act (S. 2813, June 4, 1992). Both bills required the GPO to connect to the Internet, and S. 2813 went a step further by providing $3 million for implementing the gateway. However, with Rose's consent, both measures were replaced in September 1992 by the GPO Electronic Information Access Enhancement Act (H.R. 5938). The new bill narrowed the scope of the other two: implementation funding was dropped, and the number of Federal databases accessible through the gateway were limited to those resources presently distributed by GPO. In addition, it did not require GPO to connect to the Internet, but only to study the feasibility of doing so. H.R. 5983 retained free access to the GPO gateway for the DLP, and finally added a broad definition of federal electronic information to Title 44 by defining it as "...Federal public information stored electronically" [H.R. 5983, Sec. 3(7)(c)]. H.R. 5983 brought the bipartisan support needed to pass the House, but even as a piece of compromise legislation intended to satisfy Republican opposition on the House Administration Committee, it failed to pass the Senate because a hold was placed on it just before the end of the 102d Congress. As the 103d Congress began and the JCP chairmanship passed from Rose to Sen. Wendell Ford (D-KY), the legislation was revived in the Senate as S. 564 under Ford's sponsorship. In relatively short order, the measure passed through both chambers. The new law amends Title 44 in several important ways. It mandates that GPO: * create and maintain a directory of Federal Electronic information; * provide a system of online access to The Congressional Record, The Federal Register and "other appropriate publications distributed by the Superintendent of Documents" as determined by the SupDoc; and * operate an electronic storage facility with online access. Finally, it places in Title 44 a broad definition of Federal electronic information defining it as "Federal public information stored electronical