Boston, Massachusetts
May 17-19, 1995
MR. NEAL: Thank you to all our speakers. I believe they have shared some important information that should stimulate good discussion and questions. I agree with many of the points raised by the speakers, particularly the points that Jim raised, but we must question all current assumptions. I am interested in your comments and questions.
MR. BLACK (University of Guelph): I want to thank Ernie for his update on the Data Liberation Movement, which was useful for the Canadian members as well as for our U.S. colleagues. I also wanted to add one additional background note, that the context of the Data Liberation Movement is coming from the roots of a very different situation than what you are facing here in the United States.
Economically free access to government information is something which we have not had in Canada for a number of years, and it makes the Data Liberation Movement even more imperative, promising things like access to census information, which in the United States is available to you free. The purchase of the last census information by the Canadian Association of Research Libraries cost that group approximately $300,000.
So I just want to reiterate that what Ernie was talking about is a really critical move towards providing access to public data in Canada.
MR. INGLES: One parenthetical comment. In the report I mentioned, and this may well prove to be the Achilles heel or Waterloo of the Liberation Initiative, the Treasury Board has estimated that the cost of the Initiative would be about a half a million dollars per year to Treasury Board. Again, we are very positive, and it looks like they are accepting that number. However, it isn’t inexpensive, and certainly it would be a major departure for us in terms of what we’ve been expending till now.
MS. TAYLOR (Brown University): Someone made the comment that all politics is local, and a number of us here are from states where the state library plays a crucial role in making state government information available, both in electronic form and otherwise, yet the state library is under real attack by the current administration.
In our state, the governor is busy at work trying to literally obliterate the state library as a separate institution, and, while I realize that ARL cannot do everything, this might be an area in which it would be wise for ARL to keep informed and be prepared to at least take a position in some of these states. It is important to have a strong state library that can continue to provide these functions, and in some of our states that agency is really in danger.
MR. YAVARKOVSKY (New York State Library): I would like to endorse Merrily’s comments. I also applaud the formation of the Committee and its attention to the future of government information, both federal and state, in electronic form.
I caution the committee to unequivocally support the role of the Government Printing Office (GPO) in the transition from paper formats and microfiche to the future world of on-line and distributed information.
Any but the firmest and most unequivocal support for GPO jeopardizes that institution in light of the facts that Jim related. Congress is not a subtle institution, and unless the statements of support are absolutely firm, we might find ourselves with an abrupt end to a program that has served very well for a hundred years.
MS. MARTIN (Georgetown University): I would like to address what Jerome just said. Ideally what he has said could be very appropriate, but I think it makes an assumption that GPO has indeed been performing effectively, especially in recent years, and, as someone who was head of a government agency for a couple of years, I’m very aware of its shortcomings.
When I was at the National Commission, most of our publishing was supposed to go through GPO. Because of costs and the lack of timeliness, I found myself in the very strange position of, on the one hand, trying to advocate to my fellow employees at other government agencies the use of GPO and that they should make their documents available to the Depository Library Program, but, on the other hand, I was also seeking every possible alternative to GPO because it was very expensive and so difficult to deal with.
I don’t think that situation has changed. I think if GPO and the Depository Library Program were being looked at by Congress as something that they wanted positively to improve, that would be something else again, but they’re not.
I would suggest that ARL is probably in a better position to make sure that we have access to the information in whatever way is appropriate for the economics and politics of our day, rather than merely looking at a single agency which might be in trouble.
MS. CANELAS (University of Florida): I would like to add my voice to the last two comments. I think the Association, ARL, needs to be careful that we don’t appear to support something whose time may have come and gone, not only regarding GPO, but any distribution capabilities, etc.
We have been very careful to keep a flexible position in all of our federal policy stances so we can avoid regrets and pay attention to changing needs. I’m not a member of that committee, but I am a member of the Board, and I can assure you that those things will be worked on.
The other thing I think we all need to inform ourselves, and perhaps our documents librarians, of is that there are multiple roles in this chain-of-information responsibility, and one of the key things that needs to be looked at is the charge to the agencies where the initiation of information takes place. There is a responsibility vested there that has often been overlooked and has often been the weak link in the historical distribution of information, as well.
MS. CLINE: One thing I think we will all need to do is to engage our documents librarians, or whoever carries such responsibilities in our organization, in some broader dialogue, because we are at risk of appearing to protect something with old terminology, and perhaps outdated capabilities, as well.
MR. KOBULNICKY (University of Connecticut): It seems to me that we have, as the panel has suggested, a very political issue to deal with.
One of the things that I believe is critically important is that we generate a commitment from the citizenry demonstrating the importance of government data. One of the leadership roles that ARL can take, by means of our staff expertise and use of information technology, is by building a core of information central to people’s lives, mounting those sources in a way that works with our associated state libraries, state library associations, and public libraries, making sure that those pieces of critical information are delivered in the most useful way possible to the citizens. That way people can easily see the benefit of such information and begin to put pressure where pressure needs to be put.
MR. TABB (Library of Congress): I would like to say how pleased I am about the appointment of this committee, and offer very promptly, Jim, to share with you the information we have been supplying other committees over the last three years. I would like to speak in support of the comments Sue and Nancy made, as well. We have been answering questions and providing congressional committees on this issue for the last three years, and typically what we have been instructed to do in answering those questions is not to speak on the organizational structure, the entities, or the survival of GPO, but to focus on the principles that ought to be upheld in whatever happens, and on some of the practical concerns we have about making sure that those principles are followed.
So, for example, we have tried to concentrate on what would be the negative impacts on the international exchange programs of the distribution to printing function, and what might be the impact on prompt and good cataloging.
We were having difficulty getting hold of the materials, but then not taking the next step of saying, therefore, Congress, you ought to do X in terms of organization. It is something the Association should be very cautious about, as well, not only because it’s just good policy, but because we know from working very closely with our committee staff that they do not wish to be instructed on that particular matter and, in fact, to do so might be counter-productive.
MR. NEAL: It is very important to recognize that the library community has been working together hard and long on this issue over several years, and that we are trying to develop a common position of advocacy. What we are trying to keep as a centerpiece of our efforts is the needs of our users, both of our primary community, the faculty and students, and of the secondary community, the people who live in our region.
The partnership which has developed this statement is important to build on, and what we are attempting to do in the Association of Research Libraries, through this special committee and the Information Policies Committee, is recognize that things are changing rapidly, and that, if we are to carry forward and meet our obligations to our primary and secondary users, we are going to have to question some assumptions and we are going to have to establish some new models for providing access to this important corpus of government information.