----------------------------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 #######################################################################