----------------------------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: [log in to unmask] 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 [log in to unmask] 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 #######################################################################