ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 516 / C&RL News Answering questions about the White House Conference by Patricia A . W and Chair, A CRL Task Force o n W HCLIS T h e W h γ γ e H o u s e C o n f e r e n c e On L i b r a r y A n d I n f o r m a t i o n S e r v i c e s 1991 • Did the White House C onference on Library and Information Services II (WHCLIS) actually take place at the W hite House? No, W HCLIS was held July 9-13, 1991, at the Washington Convention Center about 8 blocks from the White House. It was named the “White House” conference because it focused on federal roles in relation to information centers and on setting a national information agenda for the de­ cade. • How would you describe W H CLIS? The White House Conference was unlike any conference I have ever attended. It was more o f a congress than a conference in that the status of attendees played an important role and lent a special environment. Because the time frame was tight and the agenda long, the intense task-orienta- tion created a level of stress not usually found in conferences. WHCLIS was smaller than confer­ ences of the ALA. It was conducted along strictly enforced protocols with written rules for debate and decision-making. Anyone could have regis­ tered as an observer but the real work was carried out by delegates. Delegates were pre-selected and represented various geographic regions and con­ stituents. Their work focused on issues that had been framed during the 60 or so pre-White House Conference events. The charge to delegates was to formulate resolutions and an agenda for the federal role in the next decade of the information age. • How was the White House Conference structured? The schedule included the Presidential address, a speech by the First Lady, conference briefings and official greetings, theme and keynote speakers, receptions, meal events, discussions in small and large groups, a Joint Congressional Hearing, and the Great Debate on the future of information service. Key people throughout the Conference were: Charles Reid, chairman, White House Con­ ference; Richard Akeroyd, chairman, White House Advisory Committee; Joseph Fitzsimmons, vice chairman, White House Conference; Jean Curtis, executive director, White House Conference; P e­ te r Young, executive director, National Commis­ sion on Libraries and Information Science; Phillip Blumberg, presiding officer; Jan e Klausman, chief parliamentarian. During the all-conference events in the main hall, there was a strictly enforced, hierarchical seating arrangement with sections clearly marked as follows: speakers platform; delegates, seated in groups by state; delegates-at-large; honorary and alternate delegates (no speaking or voting privi­ leges); observers— official and self-sponsored; and volunteers. Microphones were available only in the delegates section and security guards checked badges for the appropriate color-code before allow­ ing anyone to enter that area. • W ere the concerns o f academ ic libraries addressed? Definitely yes, academic library issues were dis­ cussed and covered in W HCLIS. The original 130 draft resolutions were prioritized by delegates and of the top 25 resolutions, 19 are directly related to academic libraries. Topics of those top 19 are: •information superhighway modeled on pro­ posed National Research and Education Network •funding for libraries •marketing library services •preservation policy and needs assessment •recognition of libraries in federal government structure, including congressional committees on libraries and higher status in the Department of Education •meeting information needs of multi-cultural, multi-lingual populations •revisions in copyright legislation •access to government information, including non-exempt government-sponsored research •protecting rights of intellectual freedom September 1991 / 517 •assuring confidentiality and protecting against censorship •including libraries in America 2000:An E duca­ tion Strategy (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1991) [Ed. note: See the Congres­ sional Record, July 11,1991, vol. 137, no. 106 for a discussion of this document in Major Owens's ad­ dress, “Libraries in America 2000.” •increased funding for collection development •reduced rates for mail and telecommunications •eliminate physical barriers in information cen­ ters •recruiting for the information profession and scholarships for minorities. • Who were delegates? In all there were 636 delegates and 48 delegates- at-large. They came in all shapes, sizes, and colors; they spoke many languages; they had various physi­ cal abilities. In short, they represented a broad cross-section of the population. In terms of their relationship to libraries, one-fourth of the delegates were information professionals, one-fourth were trustees and friends of libraries, one-fourth were government officials or employees, and one-fourth were users of libraries and information services. Delegates had voting rights and could speak during plenary sessions and topic group discussions. Reso­ lutions were drafted by delegates in 30 subgroups focusing on 10 different topics. Delegates-at-large were invited to serve in that capacity because of their positions in the world o f information storage and service or because their expertise was missing among the delegates and was needed to provide a well-rounded group perspective. Delegates-at-large enjoyed the same privileges as delegates. • Who were others attending the White House Conference? In all over 1,600 people attended WHCLIS, 1,000 of whom were honorary delegates, alternate delegates, observers, and volunteers. Honorary del­ egates were invited because of their roles in the profession ortheirparticipation in pre-White House Conference events and planning. They were al­ lowed to speak during topic group discussions but could not vote or speak during plenary sessions. Alternate delegates had the same privileges as hon­ orary delegates and became delegates if delegates from their states or territories were unable to serve. Observers paid a registration fee and could attend all plenary sessions and various special events. They could observe topic group discussions if there was space. Volunteers played a vital role in the Confer­ ence by serving as facilitators, moderators, record­ ers, computer operators, couriers, and hosts. • You have discussed many positive as­ pects of the White House Conference. Was there anything you did not like about the Conference? Yes, there was. I did not like having to keep quiet during discussions. As an honorary delegate, I was permitted to participate only in discussions of small topic groups and only if the facilitator recognized me. Since most delegates were as eager to talk as I was, I seldom had the opportunity to contribute. It was frustrating! I must add that, given the number of delegates and the need to draft resolutions in a short time frame, I understand the rationale behind the strictly-enforced protocol. • Some delegates reported observing little mass media coverage of W HCLIS. What in fact was the media coverage? Although there was little printed in the Washing­ ton Post during the White House Conference itself, there was considerable coverage throughout the U.S. A number of national newspapers, including The New York Times, USA Today, Christian Sci­ ence Monitor, and Chronicle o f Higher Education, carried stories. News of the event appeared in at least 32 regional and local newspapers. Among these were Chicago Sun Times, The Los Angeles Times, Cincinnati Enquirer, Baltimore Sun, and The Miami Herald. Perhaps the widest coverage was via radio broadcasts. Crosstalk, a 30-minute CBS discussion show, interviewed Peter Young, director, National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, and Richard Akeroyd, WHCLIS co-chairman, about the event. ABC W orld News Tonight covered WHCLIS within a story on library funding issues. Interviews with delegates and members of the WHCLIS Advisory Commit­ tee were taped for radio airing during the confer­ ence and broadcast in major media markets by more than 55 different stations across the country. Staff at the Office of the White House Conference aimed press releases and press conferences at home­ town and trade publications. In this case “trade” is considered the library and information service pro­ fession. Coverage in those publications was consid­ erable. More than 22 publications carried detailed stories and/or covered the event for their reader­ ship. • What will you rem em ber most about WHCLIS? On opening day we heard Barbara Bush before lunch, Marilyn Quayle during lunch, and George Bush after lunch. How can one forget a menu like that? Putting aside all political preferences, every­ one takes note when the President of the United States addresses an assembly. The content of their speeches indicated awareness of the importance of libraries and information services. Each of the three highlighted different aspects of the role of libraries but the bottom line was that libraries and access to PHYSICIANS' DESK REFERENCE PDR — cornerstone of your drug Physicians’ Desk Reference® is the book you can turn to for accurate, reliable, and up-to-date inform ation on prescription drugs. library! Easy to use and quick to scan, the all-new 1992 Edition contains vital inform ation listed by product name, category, manufacturer, and chem ical and generic names. The 1992 PDR gives you official FDA labeling inform ation on virtua lly all prescription drugs. Product descriptions provided by the m anufacturers have been edited and approved by th eir individual m edical departm ents. It’s this attention to detail and research that has earned the respect of everyone who has relied on it since 1947; and m ade PDR The Source for prescription drug data. ■ Published January 1992 ■ ISBN: 1-56363-003-6 ■ $54.95 To order, contact your library wholesaler. For more information, write: Physicians’ Desk Reference, 5 Paragon Drive, Montvale, NJ 07645. Phone: 201-358-7200 FAX: 201-573-4956 September 1991 / 519 information are vital to a democracy, to human development and to a healthy economy. George Bush acknowledged the importance of libraries in education and research and recognized their changing nature due to technological ad­ vances. Consistent with her life-long commitment, Barbara Bush focused on the role of libraries in promoting and assuring literacy of family members without regard to age. Marilyn Quayle talked about the vital role of the library in the community, in strong liberal arts education, and in the development of the whole person. She drew heavily on writers who have contributed through literature and history to the advancement of culture. She came back to the importance o f the archival role of libraries. Being graced with the support and presence of George Bush, Barbara Bush, and Marilyn Quayle lent credence to the Conference’s White House connection! I f it is true that people are judged by the company they keep, then it is safe to say that library users, librarians, and information professionals are a very distinguished group! • W ho w ere o th e r speakers? To name some o f the featured speakers: L a m a r A le x a n d e r, Secretary o f Education; J a m e s Billington, Librarian of Congress; William Esrey, president and C EO , US Sprint; J . Michael F arrell, partner in Manatt, Phelps, & Phelps law firm; M ary Hatwood Fu trell, associatedirector, Center for the Study of Education and National Development, George Washington University; Newt G ingrich, U.S. Representative, Georgia; Jan ette Hoston H ar­ ris, director, Educational Affairs, District of Co­ lumbia; D eb orah Kaplan,director, Division on Technology Policy, World Institute on Disability; M ajor Owens, U.S. Representative, New York, and librarian; Paul Simon, U.S. Senator, Illinois. Participants in the Great Debate regarding the future o f library and information services were: Clem ent Bezold, executive director, Institute for Alternative Futures; R o b ert Houk, U.S. Public Printer; Charles M cClure, professor, School of Information Studies, Syracuse University; Anthony O ettinger, chairman, Program on Information R e­ sources Policy, Center for Information Policy R e­ search, Harvard University; Amy Owen, Utah State Librarian; C harles Robinson, director, Baltimore County Public Library; Ja c k Simpson, president, Mead Data Central; Phyllis Steckler, president, The Oryx Press; D on Wilson, Archivist o f the U.S. • D o you think the W hite House C onfer­ en ce will make a difference? The difference it makes depends on us. The agenda has been set, the resolutions are written. The responsibility to implement the program lies with the profession and with Congress. Congress responds to pressure. You and I make up the profession. I f we want to achieve the goals we set, we must apply pressure to Congress and work toward the goals systmatically. • How can A CRL m em bers help achieve the goals? I f each o f us does a little collectively we can make a difference. Here are a few suggestions: •Read the final 100 resolutions o f W H CLIS. All delegates received copies and additional copies are available on a limited basis from the Office of W H CLIS. Call 1-800-W HCLIS2 and inquire. •Contact delegates who represented your state or territoiy. Invite them to a meeting of your ACRL Chapter to discuss W H CLIS and the resolutions. Ask them how you and your colleagues can help achieve the goals. •Talk with colleagues in your ACRL Chapter about activities that can be carried out on the local level. •Implement the Legislative Network as pro­ posed by the ACRL Government Relations Com­ mittee and use it to help articulate library needs to your representatives in local, state, and federal governments. •Learn about library issues that affect your com­ munity and state. Get involved in addressing the issues through local political processes. ■ ■ R are book cataloging rep ort published R are B o o k Cataloguing in the British Isles‚ by Ann Lennon and David Pearson, a report based on data collected from a survey o f libraries, has been published by the British Library. The authors surveyed 183 libraries o f all types to gather information on current practice in rare book cataloging around the British Isles, with particular emphasis on the descriptive codes in use and the impact of automation. The survey found that there is considerable diversity of practice in rare book cataloging in the British Isles, both in the codes used and the elements o f information recorded. It also found widespread dissatisfaction with the UKMARC format as presently defined, because it fails to provide fields for many of the specialized ele­ ments essential to rare book work. Copies o f the 53-page report are £10.00 (ISBN 0 7 1 2 3 325 37) and maybe ordered from: British Library Publications Sales Unit, Boston Spa, Wetherby, West Yorkshire LS23 7BQ, UK.