----------------------------Original message---------------------------- This message was forwarded by Melissa Lamont from GOVDOC-L. It is a long message, ca 600 lines so be warned. -----Johnnie -------------------------------------------- Tue, 1 Jun 1993 16:34:20 EST Discussion of Government Document Issues <[log in to unmask]> DLC Summary Forwarded from govdoc-l, again sorry for any duplication ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Summary, Spring Meeting Depository Library Council Washington, DC May 17-18, 1993 MONDAY, MAY 17, 1993 The Spring 1993 Depository Library Council (DLC) meeting was held May 17-18, 1993 in the Carl Hayden Room at the Government Printing Office (GPO). Council members in attendance: Gary Cornwell, Chair; Beth Duston, Chair-Elect; Susan Tulis, Secretary; William Ellis; Carol Gordon; Sandy Morton-Schwalb; Robert Oakley; Kay Schlueter; Jack Sulzer; Richard Varn; Mark Vonderhaar; and John Weiner. The meeting began with Council setting its goals and objectives for this meeting. It was hoped that by working through the draft document, "Alternatives for Restructuring the Depository Library Program (DLP)," Council could move the discussion forward, come up with some recommendations, and be able to issue the report not as a draft but as report of Council. Wayne Kelley, Superintendent of Documents, told us that this meeting was important to GPO because of all the changes taking place throughout the government. GPO staff would be carefully listening to all that is said during this meeting. Library Programs Service (LPS) will be having a retreat in June to talk about what they are doing, their successes, their frustrations, and discuss how they can improve on their performance based upon what they have heard at this meeting and others. Judy Russell, Director, LPS, updated us on GPO connecting to the Internet. Commerce is in the process of installing an Internet connection for its Electronic Bulletin Board. If it works for Commerce, then GPO will copy them. The plan is to have telnet access through the Internet to the bulletin board, allowing screen capture and supporting kermit file transfer, but no FTP. In response to a question, Ms. Russell stated that GPO will accept the software for Phase 1 of ACSIS by the conclusion of this fiscal year, after having had one full year of testing, use, and debugging. There is no firm schedule for when phases 2 and 3 will be in place. Phase 1 is already impacting GPO; the classifiers have moved to the receiving area so they can work with the material as it arrives. This change should expedite the processing as well as identifying problems, such as shorts, and will provide more timely opportunity to respond to them. Phase 2 deals with the production of shipping lists and a by-product will be electronic delivery of shipping lists. Testing on Phase 2 should begin Oct. 1, 1993. Phase 3 has to do with microfiche. The breaking out of item numbers is being done by the inspectors as time permits. There is, therefore, no target date for when the 30 suggested items numbers might be broken out. At this point it is hard to estimate if this will result in any cost savings since LPS will still have to resurvey libraries. Ms. Russell also mentioned another proposal being considered. It appears in the May 15, 1993 Administrative Notes issue and deals with the discontinuation of ephemeral materials such as newsletters, preprints, reprints, and separates. She stressed that this is just a proposal. Russell Duncan, Graphic Systems Development Division, gave Council a demonstration of a prototype online Congressional Record. The software he demonstrated was Electronic Book Technology by Dynatext. It was fairly sophisticated and supported a windows application. The company had done some customization for GPO, such as always showing you what page number you were on and who was speaking. Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) was needed so that sections within sections within sections could be located. It is possible to limit a search request based on the SGML tags. With a color monitor, the different types of material in the Record appeared in different colors. Mr. Duncan said that it would be possible to have it be different type faces if a color monitor was not used. Tables are in there, but GPO hasn't figured out exactly how they will be put in. It is also possible to cut and paste portions, export portions, set up different screen views, and different printer views. At present, GPO is working to make their typesetting program accept SGML tags. It is still not clear how this would be distributed to depository libraries. Libraries might dial up to GPO to search, libraries might receive the SGML tagged data so they could put it up on their local systems, or libraries might get a monthly cumulative CD-ROM. It is assumed that one year of the Congressional Record would take 2 disks. It might also be possible to produce a cumulative index of the bi-weekly indexes on a CD-ROM. Ms. Russell said that for awhile there will probably be multiple formats, until they find what is best and most cost-effective. The RFP for the software is being worked on right now; so it is not certain the selection of software will be finalized. Joan Lippincott, Coalition for Networked Information (CNI), spoke about CNI's Access to Public Information Program (APIP) which has the overall purpose of improving public access to networked government information via the Internet. The primary objectives of this program are to push things a little more quickly than they might happen in the formal bureaucratic environment of the institutions that exist and to launch some experimental products and disseminate what they learn. One of the initiatives is to improve GPO Depository Library connectivity to and programming of networked Federal information. Council was very much interested in this particular initiative since it has just been talking about electronic libraries. This may be a way to test out what the issues are in terms of providing service to networked information, how to receive it, how to archive it, how the receiving library can get information out to others, both on Internet and those not on Internet, etc. No libraries have been chosen yet for this project. It was suggested that Carol Gordon and Jack Sulzer work with CNI in whatever way possible and communicate back to both GPO and Council with their findings or plan. Carol Watts, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, spoke about the work being done at NOAA to collect and disseminate data on the global change activities of the federal government. There is a Library Information Subgroup of the Interagency Working Group on Data Management for Global Change. In addition to saving researchers' time and assisting those who need to obtain global change information, this subgroup will coordinate library collections, work with others on bibliographic problems, identify and develop library products, work with libraries and information producers, and address preservation issues. Steve Hayes outlined the activities of the Dupont Circle Group, an independent group of practicing documents librarians who put together a discussion document on restructuring of the Depository Library Program. All depositories should have received copies by now. Mike DiMario, Acting Public Printer, briefly touched on a number of topics. (The full text of his remarks appear in Administrative Notes, vol. 14, no. 11, May 31, 1993, pp. 1-2.) While it is true that he is in an acting capacity, GPO is not in a holding pattern. Some changes he proposed are linking the Council meeting with the annual Federal Depository Conference, moving the annual meeting and the Spring Council meeting around the country, that new appointments to Council will come from the ranks of working depository librarians, and changing the plan for the distribution of the Serial Set. In regards to the Serial Set, Mr. DiMario said that he had received a letter from Senator Ford asking him to reconsider his predecessor's decision about its distribution. Since Congress was willing to move money from Congressional Printing and Binding for the distribution of the Serial Set, Mr. DiMario sees this as the direction Congress intended GPO to take. He also feels that the whole issue of the Serial Set has put the Public Printer and the Superintendent of Documents in an outrageous position of making political decisions. That is not the function of either job. Their jobs are largely ministerial in nature - to carry out the mandates of the policy that have been established by the Congress and the President. But he also acknowledged that there is only so much funding. One method of dealing with the limited funding is that when you run out of money, you go and advise the Congress of that situation. The amount of money given to this program to "inform the nation" is minute. There was concern by Council members about Mr. DiMario's suggestion that being a working depository librarian might be a prerequisite to being a member of Council. Mr. DiMario stated that it was his sense that other interested parties should be made ex- officio members of Council. They would still participate fully in the deliberations, but not vote. Members of Council felt that a balance needed to be stuck in the membership of Council. DISCUSSION OF COUNCIL DOCUMENT Bob Oakley served as the facilitator for the discussion of the Council draft document. The draft report does not come to any conclusions or recommendations and it was thought that this might result from this discussion. The first question addressed was "why are we talking about restructuring anyhow?" Council suggested five possible reasons for 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. Observers pointed out that it might be a political crisis or an economic reality as opposed to a economic crisis. The second question Council addressed was "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. Values/Goals 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 ax 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. It was mentioned a number of times that the $30 million dollar program to "inform the nation" is such a small amount when you are talking about a trillion dollar government budget. While $30 million sounds like it is not easy to cut, it is easy to cut. One observer pointed out that the current federal budget proposal includes $261 billion in incentive programs. Is the DLP part of the group that should be involved in an incentive program to have an informed nation or is it part of the group that needs to be sliced out of the budget so that you have the money for the incentive program? There is a need to illustrate to Congress the value of the DLP. In some respects, the DLP is a victim of its own efficiency. The program has made do with the funding it has received. But we have reached the limit of what else can be done with limited funding. Assumptions Next, the report itself was discussed. It was decided to change assumption nine to read: 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. Assumption one, which reads, "The Depository Library Program is and will continue to be a vital link between the citizens and the agencies of American government needing to distribute information" also generated discussion. 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 consensus of Council was that assumption one should be changed to: 1. A depository library program should and will continue to be a vital link between the citizens and the agencies of American government needing to distribute information. Alternative Scenarios The alternative scenarios that appear in the report are the result of brainstorming. The plan was to get a number of scenarios out onto the table so that they could be discussed. The tougher job is to see which ones Council likes or dislikes, and possibly make some recommendations for the future direction of the DLP. The scenarios can be grouped into three clusters - economically oriented, access to electronic, and relationships between different kinds of depositories. Economically Oriented Downsizing was the first economically oriented scenario that Council 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 they might be forced to drop out of the Program. Picking up on the Basic Service Centers outlined in the Dupont Circle Report, maybe some libraries would be willing to receive a predetermined core set of items in exchange for different overhead responsibilities (ie. no inspections, no disposition lists, etc.) The question was raised as to why libraries don't just select less? Besides the fact that this proposal would reduce the overhead burden, there are mixed signals coming from GPO in terms of how much libraries are suppose to select. The inspectors are telling libraries that they have to select a certain percentage, and others within GPO are telling libraries they need to select less. Another option mentioned was to allow libraries to select a core collection, with reduced overhead responsibilities, and then shift some of the money saved to purchase equipment needed for accessing electronic information. (Similar to what the Patent and Trademark Office does with it Patent Depository Libraries.) 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. That is why there is a strict inspection program to meet certain standards. It was suggested that maybe reducing the number of libraries couldn't exist on its own - maybe it needs to be done in conjunction with another scenario. 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)? It was suggested that we might want to recommend a moratorium on appointing new depository libraries. It was not clear whether this was possible to do, legally. But it might work if done in conjunction with minimum technical requirements for a library to become a depository. It was also unclear whether Council was trying to say there should be no more depository libraries or there should be fewer than the current 1400. It was suggested that we study this more and come back to it at the Fall meeting. 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. TUESDAY, MAY 18, 1993 Access to Electronics Four of the Council scenarios fit into this 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. The first question Council addressed was "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? It was unclear whether it is too late for GPO to get involved. Things are changing daily, maybe the best thing is for GPO to stick itself into one of the many initiatives currently available, and get some experience. Just getting on the Internet and experimenting with that would be a good start. Working with CNI on their initiative could get GPO the answer to some of the questions we have been asking in terms of electronic depositories. 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. Assuming it passes, 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. The bill requires GPO to provide an electronic directory. What does this mean? Will it be a locator system of everything or a locator to agency locator systems? Is providing a locator to locators something we want the DLP to do? At this point there are no incentives or standards for agencies to provide their information in formats that are usable. How will GPO address that? What would be lost if users went directly to the agencies as opposed to a GPO gateway? Would there still be low cost or free access to information if the direct access method is used? Our fundamental principles should not disappear just because the formats have changed. Mr. Kelley gave his view of the situation. GPO at this point needs to have something useful, that is visible, that is focused and succeeds in order to move into the electronic arena and become a player. The Access bill provides a starting point with a core of two items. If GPO starts with high demand items, in user friendly formats, identifies depository libraries who have the resources and interest, who are able to provide the participation and evaluation of what worked, then GPO can take that and build on it as a prototype of what might work system wide. Unfortunately, funding is still an issue. Discussion of the third cluster of scenarios, the relationships between different types of depositories, was incorporated into the discussion of the Dupont Circle Group document. DUPONT CIRCLE GROUP DOCUMENT Jack Sulzer served as facilitator for the discussion on the Dupont Circle Group 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. The Dupont Circle Group document has as its Service Model 1 - Federal Information Service Centers. This is based on having three service levels - basic, intermediary, and full. Council had had some discussion about the basic service center yesterday. 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? COUNCIL OPERATIONS Before Council wrote the following recommendations, they addressed some operational matters. Sandy Morton-Schwalb agreed to attend the NTIS Advisory Board meeting May 27-28, 1993 and report back to Council. The Communications Committee reported on their meeting during the Federal Depository Conference April 22, 1993. The meeting addressed four communications questions, the comments of which are summarized in an upcoming issue of Administrative Notes. Some of the comments have been resolved as a result of Mr. DiMario's remarks yesterday. Although the Communications Committee didn't have any specific recommendations, they did throw some issues back to Council for discussion and action. Should a friends' group of GPO be established? Should an operations committee of Council be established to work with the GODORT Depository Operations Work Group? It is not the intent to have operational stuff brought to Council to deliberate. This committee would identify operational issues that needed an administrative response, communicate directly with GPO to resolve them, and report to Council, but that is all. Should GPO explore the use of teleconferencing as a way of communicating Council deliberations to those individuals who are unable to attend the meetings? Should there be a Communications or Council column in Administrative Notes? Is there a way to make Administrative Notes more timely? How can we get more agencies to participate at the Federal Depository Conference? Federal Publishers Committee will send out the information about the conference if they get it in time. It was also suggested that we get some agencies that have participated in the conference to write a one page article about the benefits to agencies in participating in the conference. It was the feeling of Council that under the previous Public Printer the bylaws we had were not a reflection of what we were doing. Therefore, Council has drafted a mission and charter that is more flexible, allowing for both a policy role and an operational role for Council. In terms of the make-up of Council, it says "at least half will work in a depository library and have documents experience." Another change from the old by-laws is that the election of Chair is not dependent upon class. The mission and charter will be published in Administrative Notes to get community feedback and then be adopted at the Fall 93 Council meeting. Once the mission and charter are adopted they will be added to the "Handbook of the Depository Library Council" and then the Handbook will be disseminated to the depository community. It was suggested that this Handbook also go with the letter to various groups requesting names for consideration as potential Council appointees. The next step for Council is to clean up its draft report, make the changes that resulted from this meeting, and get it out to the depository community as a discussion piece. It will be printed in Administrative Notes, along with this summary of the meeting, as well as a comment sheet, and Council members names and addresses. Feedback on this report is needed to make it a depository community document. Although it is hoped that this report will end up being a consensus document, stating what the depository libraries' view is of the future of the DLP, it is not Council's role to get this document into the hands of Congress and other decision makers. But this doesn't prevent others from taking the Council report and using it or appending it to other reports. In the course of making recommendations, a number of things either got referred to the Fall meeting or it was felt a recommendation was not needed. The Council Corner in Administrative Notes is a given, Council just needs to submit material to the editor. The Communications Committee will continue to exist and Beth Duston will appoint a new member and chair in the Fall. It was suggested that the names of members of this committee as well as a statement of purpose be published in Administrative Notes. It was the sense of Council that there is a problem with either the number of depository libraries or the way they are distributed, since there are too many in some areas. Although Council could not come up with a recommendation to address this problem, we encourage GPO to give this some consideration and invite GPO to work with Council on this. If nothing changes before the Fall, Council will deal with this then. The question was raised that as GPO moves into electronic access, is Council willing to tell GPO how much to spend on this endeavor? It was suggested that the information shared with the focus groups would be very valuable in determining this, that if Council members could get that financial data, then Council could address this in the Fall. Council was not ready to make a recommendation on restructuring of the DLP. It is expected that this will be done at the Fall meeting once the community has had a chance to comment. Gary Cornwell turned the gavel over to Beth Duston who is now Council Chair. Kay Schlueter was elected Secretary. Ms. Duston announced that Jack Sulzer will serve as her assistant until a Chair-Elect is chosen at the Fall meeting. Submitted by: Susan E. Tulis Secretary