From jrussell@gpo.govTue Apr 30 08:40:20 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 17:37:01 -0700 From: "Judith C. Russell" Reply to: Discussion of Government Document Issues To: Multiple recipients of list GOVDOC-L Subject: FDLP Study: Minutes of 4/18 Presentations of Comments on the Draft Report STUDY TO IDENTIFY MEASURES NECESSARY FOR A SUCCESSFUL TRANSITION TO A MORE ELECTRONIC FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM (FDLP) On April 18th there was a meeting of the FDLP Study working group and advisors in order to provide the advisors with an opportunity to present their preliminary reactions to the draft Report to Congress. The minutes of the meeting are provided below. Supplemental statements submitted by NCLIS, the Depository Library Council and the library associations will be transmitted separately. IIA is not submitting a supplemental statement at this time. Public comments on the draft report are still welcome, but should be submitted NOT LATER THAN Friday, May 24, 1996. Comments may be submitted by Internet e-mail to study@gpo.gov, by fax to FDLP Study at (202) 512-1262, or by mail to FDLP Study, Mail Stop SDE, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20401. Please be sure to include sufficient information to identify yourself and enable us to contact you for additional information or clarification (e.g. name, affiliation, telephone number, e-mail address). ************************************************************************** STUDY TO IDENTIFY MEASURES NECESSARY FOR A SUCCESSFUL TRANSITION TO A MORE ELECTRONIC FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM (FDLP) MINUTES Meeting of the Working Group and Advisors, April 18, 1996 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 628 Wayne Kelley, Superintendent of Documents and chair of the study, opened the meeting at 2:08 p.m. by thanking those present for attending. Mr. Kelley then turned the floor over to Ms. Russell, Director, Office of Electronic Information Dissemination Services. Ms. Russell explained that the joint meeting had been arranged in response to requests from several advisors for an opportunity to meet with Working Group in order to share their views on the FDLP transition plan and study. She emphasized that the advisors would be presenting their preliminary comments on the draft study report. The comment period for the study would run through the end of May, by which time final comments would be expected for incorporation into the report to Congress. Ms. Russell announced that four advisors would be speaking at the meeting. These included representatives from the National Commission on Library and Information Science (NCLIS), the Depository Library Council (DLC), the Information Industry Association (IIA) and the American Library Association (ALA). ALA would be speaking on behalf of itself and several other library associations. As several of the advisors and working group members had not met previously, Mr. Kelley asked those in attendance to introduce themselves. 1. National Commission on Library and Information Science (NCLIS) After introductions were completed, Ms. Russell announced the first speaker, Ms. Joan Challinor from the National Commission on Library and Information Science (NCLIS). Ms. Challinor explained that she was speaking on behalf of Ms. Jeanne Hurley Simon, Chair of NCLIS, as Ms. Simon was unable to attend. She thanked the Government Printing Office for the opportunity to share some preliminary thoughts on the draft report. Ms. Challinor explained that NCLIS members had not yet had the opportunity to review the report thoroughly. Therefore, the comments she was providing were preliminary and would be followed with more detailed comments at a later date. Her comments would address four areas: NCLIS's Principles of Public Information, the results of NCLIS's surveys of public libraries Internet involvement, the Commission's interest in assisting with an FDLP implementation study, and NCLIS's general concerns about citizen access to Federal information. Ms. Challinor provided a brief history of NCLIS, explaining that it was established as an independent agency in 1970. NCLIS advises both the President and the Congress on national and international policy relating to library and information science. It is a citizen's advisory body, and as such, it represents the interests of the people. On July 28, 1990, NCLIS adopted its Principles of Public Information. These were included in the draft Study report as Attachment E. The eight statements were adopted as an interrelated whole (no one of the principles more important than another) and were meant to serve as the underlying basis for the formulation of all future national information policies. NCLIS was glad to see these principle incorporated into the draft report because any actions taken as a result would need to balance Congressional concerns for cost efficiencies with these basic principles regarding the creation, access, use, and dissemination of Government information. Ms. Challinor presented findings from two NCLIS studies on public library Internet connectivity. The first study, conducted in 1994, found that 20.9% of the nation's public libraries had Internet connections. This number had increased to 44.6% by the time of the second study in 1996. Ms. Challinor explained that any plan for the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) would have to take into account this rapid rate of change. In addition to the two studies on Internet connectivity, NCLIS also developed cost models for public library connections to the Internet in 1995. She added that a cost model for 1996 would be included in NCLIS's future comments as results from the 1996 NCLIS survey are analyzed and made available. Ms. Challinor stressed that any plan for the FDLP should address the access needs of the general public and should be based on current, reliable, and consistent information about the capabilities of both Federal agencies and depository libraries, as well as information on the public's need for convenient and inexpensive access to electronic Government information. NCLIS believes that the need to gather such background information makes a two-year transition period insufficient. NCLIS believes a five-year transition period from 1996 to 2001 would be more reasonable. NCLIS also believes that plans for the FDLP need to be made in a Government-wide context. This includes an evaluation of how well the publics' need for access to public information is being addressed through the FDLP in relation to electronic services like GPO Access, the Library of Congress' THOMAS system, the Government Information Locator Service (GILS) and agencies' Internet gopher sites and World Wide Web (WWW) home pages. To this end, Ms. Challinor explained that NCLIS would be interested and willing to participate in collaborative efforts to study and analyze this issue. The floor was then opened to questions for Ms. Challinor. Mr. Kelley inquired as to the type of study NCLIS believed was necessary. Ms. Challinor referred this question to the NCLIS Executive Director, Mr. Peter Young. Mr. Young replied that the type of study that NCLIS had in mind was similar to the study called for in the initial stages of the FDLP Study. Although some information from GPO's Biennial Survey has been included in the draft report, he stated that NCLIS has seen how rapidly this type of information becomes outdated. The study would need to address such issues as the role depository libraries will play for the members of the public who cannot access Government information from their homes; what types of things depository libraries will need to meet the needs of users; and what the best use of funds would be (in reference to the $500,000 in technology grants proposed in the draft report). Mr. Young also explained that the study should not be a one-time effort -- information must be gathered continually due to the rapid rate of change. He also stated the NCLIS sees a need for the identification of Government WWW sites in order to authenticate and preserve information made available through them. This will be critical to the goal of preserving history. Mr. Young finished by reiterating the need for a study to gather reliable data which could be used to set a reasonable, sensible direction for the program. No further comments or questions for NCLIS were offered from the floor. Ms. Russell introduced the next speaker, Mr. Dan O'Mahony, outgoing chair of the Depository Library Council (DLC). 2. Depository Library Council (DLC) Mr. O'Mahony expressed the DLC's thanks for the opportunity to comment on the draft report and for the scheduling of the meeting around the Depository Library Conference which had just ended that morning. He explained that the Council was pleased that the comment period for the report had been continued and stated that final comments from the DLC on the report would be provided by the end of May. He stated that it was obvious that previous comments from the council had been incorporated and/or taken into account in the draft report. Mr. O'Mahony said that overall the DLC's reaction to the report was positive. He stated that the DLC was pleased to see that the report was written in the tone of the Senate report language with its emphasis on improving access to Government information. He informed those present that many of the issues in the report were discussed by depository librarians at the recent conference. Mr. O'Mahony identified several things in the report that the DLC was particularly pleased with. These included the adoption of a more realistic 5-year time frame that would give patrons, depository libraries and GPO the chance for a successful transition. Mr. O'Mahony also told the group that the DLC has accepted the principles for Federal information, and the mission and goals for the FDLP, as stated in the draft report. The DLC was pleased that the report acknowledged that electronic dissemination provides an opportunity to expand the array of information available through the FDLP. The DLC believes that Government-wide cooperation is needed for a successful transition and recognizes that this will entail changes to Title 44 of the U.S. Code. The Council also was pleased to see that the draft report recognized in concept the continued development of the traditional functions of the program, particularly the cataloging and public service functions of depository libraries. Mr. O'Mahony shared with the group some of the concerns that remain for both the DLC and depository librarians. One of the primary concerns is that the transition should support and enhance public access, without creating new barriers to it. This will necessitate the adoption of a standardized, coordinated bibliographic system to assist in the location of Government information in depository libraries regardless of format. There also is deep concern in the depository community regarding whether the public will be able to access information in the future. A standardized method for providing permanent access to Government information is needed and the DLC believes that the FDLP needs to be systematically notified when the location of files or information is changed. The DLC also is concerned with the appropriateness of formats and their effect on public use of information. Mr. O'Mahony explained that a number of stories were shared at the depository conference concerning format problems encountered with downloaded Government information files. Depository librarians also are concerned with the increasing number of restrictions placed on Government information (i.e. user or access fees) and the potential transitional costs to the libraries for equipment, staff and training. In conclusion, Mr. O'Mahony stated that the DLC strongly supported the technological implementation study proposed in the draft report. He explained that depository librarians are excited about the possibilities for the transition for a more electronic FDLP, but also are cautious due to concerns about the potential impact of the transition on end users. There were no questions for Mr. O'Mahony from the floor. Ms. Russell then introduced Mr. Dan Duncan, the Vice President of Government Relations for the Information Industry Association (IIA). 3. Information Industry Association (IIA) Mr. Duncan commended Congress for mandating, and GPO for undertaking, the study and stated that the IIA felt that many important issues were presented in the draft report. Mr. Duncan stated that the IIA has long supported the FDLP and GPO as the repository for Government information. However, he cautioned that GPO should not attempt to be all things to all people. He explained that IIA is an association representing more than 550 companies involved in the wide variety of services related to information dissemination. For Government information, the private sector plays an integral role in the dissemination process by disseminating information to the public after adding value to it. IIA members are also part of the public who are served by, and benefit from, the availability of Government information as are their customers. The IIA is pleased that the draft report has given consideration to the principles expressed in the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), especially the inclusion of principles recognizing the importance of no copyright-like restrictions, no exclusive distribution arrangements and the guarantee of timely and equitable access to underlying data. However, the IIA is concerned that GPO is trying to doing too much. The IIA believes that in the report GPO is proposing a shift from its traditional role as a facilitator to the new role of primary publisher. This shift would represent a break from GPO's mission and historical model and would lead, IIA believes, to unnecessary expenditures. Mr. Duncan stated that the IIA also views such a change as an attempt to further centralize information dissemination at a time when Congress is calling for increased decentralization. Mr. Duncan raised the issue of standardization as an example of how IIA believes GPO is trying to do too much. He explained that according to the draft report, GPO would reformat information to meet needs beyond those which the publishing agency sees necessary for its constituencies. The IIA feels that format decisions should be made by the agencies and not by GPO. Mr. Duncan also explained that IIA felt that GPO's belief that standardization of Government information would help the private sector is unfounded -- the private sector would find it more useful to have access to underlying data. Instead of the Government developing standards, which are slow to be accepted and to change, the IIA would advocate that this process should take place in the private sector, driven by the marketplace. GPO should adopt a lowest common denominator policy whereby information would be distributed in the format which maximizes its accessibility, not necessarily its usefulness. IIA does not feel GPO is in a position to assume the level of control it would need to reformat or standardize data to meet public needs. In addition, IIA feels that it implementation of Government-wide application of standards would be impossible and that instead, the Government should continue to use commercial off-the-shelf software for its publishing. Mr. Duncan explained that the IIA also would be concerned about any attempts that might be made to authenticate Government information. This, he stated, would drive users to the original Government document and would harm private sector publishers. Authentication efforts also would conflict with standardization, as the authenticity of information could not be guaranteed if GPO reformatted agency data. IIA feels that issues concerning authenticity could be addressed better through the establishment of Chief Information Officers at each Federal agency as outlined in the PRA. The IIA does not object to the technology grants proposed in the draft report. If Congress decides to fund this activity, the IIA recommends that depository libraries be allowed to decide how best to use these funds. IIA does not believe GPO should dictate to the libraries how to spend the money. In conclusion, Mr. Duncan reiterated the IIA viewpoint that GPO should not attempt to expand its role beyond its traditional mission. There were no questions from the floor for Mr. Duncan. Ms. Russell introduced the final speaker, Ms. Carol Henderson, Director of the Washington Office of the American Library Association (ALA). 4. American Library Association (ALA) on Behalf of a Group of Library Associations Ms. Henderson explained that several library associations had worked together on the comments she would be providing, including the Association for Research Libraries (ARL), the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL), the Medical Library Association (MLA), the Special Libraries Association (SLA) and the Government Document Roundtable of ALA (GODORT). She indicated that her oral statements would be followed later by written comments on the draft study and final task reports, also prepared jointly with the other library associations. Ms. Henderson noted that like the DLC, the library associations felt that GPO had been responsive to their earlier comments in the drafting of the report. They felt that the study process was very participatory and that all those involved with the FDLP had been included. She explained that the library associations were pleased with the more realistic time frame proposed in the draft report for the transition to electronic dissemination. Ms. Henderson also stated that the associations were glad to see that the study report recognized the continued viability of a variety of formats for the FDLP. The library associations feel that the report recognizes that redundancy is sometimes necessary and that it can, in certain circumstances, foster innovation and guarantee a variety of sources for information. Ms. Henderson stated that the associations support a centralized or coordinated bibliographic system for Government information. The library associations have several continuing concerns. As Ms. Henderson stated, the associations do not feel that the findings of the study were based on substantive data. In this regard, they support approval of the capabilities study to provide technical implementation assistance as proposed in the draft report. Ms. Henderson also expressed their concern regarding long term, permanent access to Government information. In the draft report, GPO has proposed taking on major responsibilities in this area, but she noted that hard data on how this would be done was missing. The associations also are concerned about continued no fee access to Government information. This is a government responsibility and a key principle of the FDLP. Although the draft report indicates that GPO is willing to purchase depository access to other agencies' fee-based electronic services, there is no assurance that such information will be available. Availability of the information is entirely dependent on sufficient appropriations for the program, not on policy or principles. Similarly, copyright-like restrictions placed on Government information are viewed by the associations as a problem for libraries and users and affects both short and long term public access. One area that the associations did not feel was adequately addressed in the draft report was the changing role of regional vs. selective depository libraries. The role of regional depository libraries as seen in the draft report is diminished, while the role of selective libraries is expanded. Selective depositories will have to be responsible for access to all Government information. The associations feel that some selective libraries might not have the ability to provide adequate service for all Government information products. In regards to standardization, the associations feel that this issue should be resolved through ongoing efforts by agencies, GPO and the information industry to develop basic criteria to evaluate formats for dissemination. Ms. Henderson also expressed the associations' concerns that additional responsibilities placed on depository libraries for access to electronic information has the potential to increase the burden on libraries without providing any cost benefit to the Government. She pointed out that the report referred to the cost balance for the current program (in which depositories already carry a disproportionate share) and cautioned that changes to the program would have to take this balance into consideration to prevent further cost shifting to libraries. In closing, Ms. Henderson noted that in order for the FDLP to work well in an electronic environment it would need "teeth" and "incentives" for agency participation and an infrastructure that supported participation by all three branches of Government. There were no questions for Ms. Henderson from those present. Ms. Russell then asked if there were any further comments or questions. Other Comments Ms. Jan Fryer, the new chair of the Depository Library Council, was asked to comment on some of the concerns and issues discussed at the depository conference. She mentioned the concern about the ability to view and download certain types of Government information to an advanced system or printer that some libraries may not have the funds to acquire. In addition, some libraries may only be able to provide a few workstations. This may mean that public patrons will have to wait to access information if terminals are tied up by other patrons. Although the problem has always existed -- a patron may be using a book off the shelf that another patron needs -- the situation might be exacerbated in an electronic environment. Finally, she explained that some libraries that provide assistance for specific types of information, i.e. an agricultural technical library, may not be able, and should not be expected, to provide "expert" reference service for the full range of Government information products, but they can provide access to that information. Right now some libraries select CD-ROMs that they cannot fully support, but the information is available for a knowledgeable user to access in the library or by borrowing the CD-ROM. The fall DLC meeting will focus on service expectations for selective depository libraries. As there were no further comments or questions from the floor, Mr. Kelley closed the meeting by thanking the speakers and noting that, although open discussion may never lead to total agreement, at least it provides an opportunity to see the different perspectives on various issues. With that, the meeting was adjourned at 3:12 p.m. and those in attendance were invited to remain for informal discussion. Attendees: U.S. Government Printing Office Mr. Wayne Kelley, Superintendent of Documents, (Chair of Study) Mr. Bill Guy, Office of Budget Mr. Jerry Hammond, Congressional Printing Management Division Ms. Judy Russell, Electronic Information Dissemination Services Mr. Jay Young, Library Programs Service Mr. Ric Davis, Electronic Transition Staff Ms. Maggie Farrell, Electronic Transition Staff Ms. Wendy Frederick, Documents Technical Support Group Representing the U.S. Congress Mr. George Cartagena, Joint Committee on Printing Mr. John Chambers, Joint Committee on Printing Ms. Kennie Gill, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration Ms. Linda Kemp, Joint Committee on Printing Mr. David McMillen, House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight Mr. David Plocher, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs Ms. Joy Wilson, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service Ms. Jane Bortnick Griffith, Science Policy Research Division National Archives and Records Administration Mr. Tom Brown, Center for Electronic Records Ms. Fynnette Eaton, Center for Electronic Records Ms. Anita Pintado, Center for Electronic Records Office of Management and Budget Mr. Bruce McConnell, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Mr. Glenn Schlarman, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts Mr. Gary Bowden Depository Library Community Ms. Julia Wallace, University of Minnesota Library Associations Ms. Prudence Adler, Association of Research Libraries Ms. Mary Alice Baish, American Association of Law Libraries Ms. Roxanne Fulcher, Special Libraries Association Ms. Diane Garner, American Library Association/GODORT Ms. Anne Heanue, American Library Association Ms. Carol Henderson, American Library Association Ms. Lynne Siemers, Medical Library Association National Commission on Library and Information Science (NCLIS) Ms. Joan Challinor Mr. Peter Young Information Industry Association Mr. Dan Duncan Mr. Peyton Neal, PRN Associates Mr. Eric Massant, Congressional Information Service and LEXIS/NEXIS Ms. Alden Schacher Depository Library Council/Depository Community Mr. Dan O'Mahony, Brown University Ms. Jan Fryer, Iowa State University Mr. Duncan Aldrich, University of Nevada, Reno CENDI Ms. Elizabeth Buffum, Department of Energy, Office of Scientific and Technical Information