----------------------------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 <[log in to unmask]>
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: [log in to unmask]
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. <insert dates> 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
[log in to unmask]
Julia Wallace, University of Minnesota, and Chair,
ALA Government Documents Roundtable (GODORT)
[log in to unmask]
Duncan Aldrich, University of Nevada, Reno
[log in to unmask]
Tom Andersen, California State Library
[log in to unmask]
Diane Garner, Harvard University
[log in to unmask]
Carol Gordon, Milwaukee Public Library
[log in to unmask]
Steve Hayes, Notre Dame University
[log in to unmask]
Sally Holterhoff, Valparaiso University School of Law
[log in to unmask]
Linda Kennedy, University of California, Davis
[log in to unmask]
Ridley Kessler, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
[log in to unmask]
Melissa Lamont, University of Connecticut
[log in to unmask]
Sandee McAninch, University of Kentucky
[log in to unmask]
Kay Melvin, Patent and Trademark Office
703-308-4472
Daniel O'Mahony, Brown University
[log in to unmask]
John Shuler, Colgate University
[log in to unmask]
Jack Sulzer, Pennsylvania State University
[log in to unmask]
Susan Tulis, American Association of Law Libraries
[log in to unmask]
Carol Watts, NOAA/National Envir. Satellite & Data Info. Services
[log in to unmask]
Dupont Circle Reporter/Number 6/May 13, 1993
#######################################################################
|
