ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries S e p te m b e r 1989 / 649 Is government information in your library’s future? By Harold B. Shill Evansdale Librarian W est Virginia University and Sandra K. Peterson D ocum ents Librarian Vale University The politics o f electronic dissemination, 1989. T he Federal governm ent has quietly em erged as the w orld’s largest electronic publisher. A 1987 G eneral Accounting Office report listed 7,500 electronic inform ation “p ro d u cts” being produced by Federal agencies.' At th e same tim e th e num ber of p rin te d publications provided by F ed eral agen­ cies has declined from 16,000 to 12,000 during the 1980s.2 Clearly, th e F ederal governm ent is undergoing a m etam orphosis w hich will profoundly affect gov­ e rn m e n t inform ation users, libraries o f all types, and th e agencies them selves. Access to th e vast lode o f g o v e rn m e n t g e n e ra te d statistics, rep o rts, regulations, studies, laws, and graphic inform ation sources can e ith e r be greatly e n h a n c e d or greatly red u c e d , d e p e n d in g on policy choices m ade by C ongress and Executive Branch agencies in 1989. Individuals and organizations using g o v ern m en t inform ation for such diverse pu rp o se s as m arket 1U.S. G eneral A ccounting O ffice, S u rv ey o f Federal Agencies, 1987 (W ashington, D .C .: Gov­ e rn m e n t P rinting Office, 1987). 2Less Access to Less Inform ation B y a nd A bout the U. S. G overnm ent: Part 2, A 19 8 5 -8 6 Chronol­ ogy, January 1 98 5 -D ecem b er 1986 (W ashington, D.C.: A m erican L ibrary Association, W ashington Office, 1986), 1. research, health care planning, dem ographic analy­ sis, public policy developm ent, governm ental p e r ­ form ance m onitoring, and th e location o f reliable data abo u t all types o f societal tre n d s will be af­ fected, as will be th e libraries w hich so often serve as th e p rim a ry access points to th a t data. T he vehicles through w hich these decisions will be m ade— Paperw ork R eduction Act reauthoriza­ tion, legislative review o f T itle 44 U.S. C., and th e possible red ra ftin g o f OM B C ircular A-130— lack th e high d ram a o f th e O liver N o rth trial, judicial review o f Roe v. W ade, or th e initial flight o f the S tealth b o m b er. H ow ever, decisions m ade in th e next few w eeks will significantly: 1) d e te rm in e fu tu re access to g o v ern m en t inform ation in e le c ­ tro n ic form at for libraries, th e ir users, and th e gen eral pu b lic and 2) shape F e d e ra l inform ation policy in th e com ing electro n ic era. Since m any o f th e critical decisions involving e lectro n ic dissem ination o f g overnm ent inform a­ tion (E D I ) may be m ade very shortly, it is vital that academ ic a n d rese a rc h librarians u n d e rs ta n d th e issues and stakes involved. This p a p e r will explore th e b a ckground o f th e E D I controversy, exam ine th e issues and initiatives w hich have e m e rg e d in 1989, and suggest actions w hich m ight be taken by c o n c e rn e d librarians to affect th e o utcom e o f th e E D I controversy. 650 / C & R L N ew s Background Although the Depository Libraiy Program (DLP) is th e F ederal inform ation dissem ination program m ost fam iliar to th e library com m unity, it is only one of num erous dissem ination channels for gov­ e rn m e n t inform ation and provides access to only about 50 p e rc e n t of th e publications p ro d u ce d by civilian agencies. O th e r direct dissem ination ve­ hicles include the National Technical Inform ation Service (NTIS), the Superintendent of Docum ents Sales Program , the C onsum er Inform ation C en ter (CIC), private sector contractors, and Federal agen­ cies themselves. The D epartm ent of Energy (DOE), D ep artm en t o f D efense (D O D ), and th e National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) have particularly large dissem ination programs. M ajor in term ed iaries— depository libraries, com m ercial vendors, and th e p ress— are critical, secondary dissem inators w ithin th e existing dis­ sem ination in frastru ctu re. T hese interm ed iaries com plem ent th e direct dissem ination program s by providing local access, a comprehensive collection, p e rm a n e n t archiving and u se r assistance (librar­ ies); by further processing governm ent information and using electronic technologies to provide m ore sophisticated access (commercial vendors); andby identifying and publicizing inform ation having political, social, or economic significance (the press). Viewed collectively, th e direct dissem ination p ro ­ grams and nongovernm ental interm ediaries com ­ prise a complex com m unications in frastru ctu re. Existing dissem ination program s are based ei­ th e r on statutes creatin g governm ent-w ide dis­ semination requirem ents (D epository Act of 1962, F reedom of Information Act, etc.) or on obligations resulting from specific legislation (National School Lunch Act, Surface M ining C ontrol and Reclam a­ tion Act, E m ergency P lanning and C om m unity Right-to-Know Act, e tc .). However, and this point lies at th e crux o f th e c u rre n t debate, m ost existing dissem ination statutes w ere d ra fted in th e pre- electronicera. As a result, it has been argued, print- era dissem ination requirem ents are eith er unclear about agencies’ obligations to dissem inate ele c ­ tronic information through existing channels or do not apply to F ederal, as well as som e C ongres­ sional, agencies at all. This un certain ty has already had an u n d e rm in ­ ing effect on the F ederal dissem ination infrastruc­ ture. First, Federal agencies themselves frequently view dissem ination laws as applying to p rin te d inform ation only. Accordingly, electro n ic “p ro d ­ ucts” are made available primarily to internal agency users, are dissem inated (if at all) only to p a rtici­ pants in th e agencies’ own dissemination networks, are not identifiable through standard bibliographic tools (M onthly Catalog, G overnm ent Reports Announcem ents a nd Index, etc.), and are not read ­ ily available to potential users through the D L P and oth er libraries. Second, defining electro n ic inform ation as a com m odity which could effectively and profitably be d issem inated th ro u g h com m ercial channels, some private sector interm ediaries have contended that government E D I programs would create “unfair c o m p etitio n ” with th e ir own business activities. These firms and th e Inform ation Industry Associa­ tion (IIA) te n d to view governm ent E D I efforts as wasteful and undercutting th eir own services if the F e d e ra l g o vernm ent provides inform ation at no cost or at prices substantially below private m arket rates.3 T hird, while som e agencies have perceived th e relevance of including electronic products in exist­ ing government-wide dissemination programs, such as the DLP, their efforts to use those programs have b e e n delayed by th e ongoing E D I d eb ate. This outcom e was m ost evident in th e tw o-year delay, from 1987 to 1989, in th e creation o f D L P pilot projects recom m ended by the Joint C om m ittee on P rin tin g ’s Ad H oc C o m m ittee on D epository Li­ brary Access to F e d e ra l A utom ated D atabases. T he original plan to include 16 electronic products from d iffe re n t agencies was scaled back to five databases by th e tim e th e first p roduct, Census Text Disk #2, was sent to depository libraries in April 1989. T h e NTIS privatization deb ate also delayed th a t agency’s efforts to m odernize its op ­ erations and to im p lem en t strategic planning for E D I systems. Technological and political factors T he em erg en ce o f th e E D I controversy in th e late 1980s resu lted from a convergence o f tec h n o ­ logical and political developm ents. Libraries have provided online access to govern­ m ent and private sector databases alike since th e early 1970s. H ow ever, th e rap id proliferation of m icrocom puters, m odem s, com m unications soft­ ware, desktop publishing systems, optical scanners, and o th e r new inform ation technologies in th e 1980s has radically au to m ated and decen tralized th e inform ation environm ent. D irec t en d -u ser access to m achine-readable inform ation from rem o te locations is a tre n d which can be expected to accelerate rapidly. T he F e d e ra l g o v ern m en t’s integ ratio n o f new information technologies into its day-to-day opera­ tions has b e e n im pressively d o c u m e n ted in I n ­ fo rm in g the Nation: Federal Inform ation Dissemi- 3S ta te m e n t o f K en n eth B. Allen before the Subcom m ittee on G overnm ent Inform ation, Jus­ tice and A griculture, C o m m ittee on G overnm ent O perations, U.S. H ouse o f R epresentatives, April 18,1989, p. 10. S e p te m b e r 1989 / 651 nation in an Electronic Age, a landm ark study released by th e Congressional Office of T e c h n o l­ ogy'Assessment (OTA) in October 1988.4 However, as the OTA study notes, th e use o f electronic technologies for information dissemination has been confined largely to direct agency-to-user programs and dissem ination program s run by private firms. In contrast, m aterials included in the central dis­ semination program s (D L P , N TIS, etc.) are still largely in p rinted or microfiche fo rm a ts.5 Lacking a statu to ry m andate or clearly defined guidelines to do otherw ise, agencies are n o t ac­ tively making th e ir electronic pro d u cts available through th e central dissem ination m echanism s. Instead, they have increasingly m ade use o f th e ir own program s or o f com m ercial vendors for dis­ semination. W hen this occurs, th e re is a loss of bibliographic control, substantial user fees may be imposed, inform ation w ithout a high com m ercial market value m aybe lost, and the role of libraries as impartial, nonprofit interm ediaries is dim inished. Clearly, while E D I offers great op p o rtu n ities for enhancing access to governm ent inform ation, th e Federal governm ent’s increasing reliance on elec­ tronic technologies also raises the risk that valuable information will be difficult to find, perm anently lost, or available only to those able to afford su b ­ stantial user fees. Politically, a nu m b er of factors have caused E D I to em erge as an issue. They include: 1) th e Reagan A dm inistration’s less-governm ent philosophy; 2) specific directives im plem enting th a t philosophy; 3) commercial firms’ interest in th e profit potential of some g overnm ent inform ation; 4) th e deficit reduction problem ; 5) concerns about foreign ac­ cess to sensitive inform ation; 6) th e em ergence of the international com petitiveness issue; and 7) concerns about equal access to governm ent infor­ mation. Legally, th e E D I controversy is ro o te d in con­ flicting in te rp re ta tio n s o f th e 1980 Paperw ork Reduction Act, th e F re ed o m o f In form ation Act (FOIA), policy directives from th e Office o f M an­ agem ent and R udget (OM B), and p ro p e r pub lic/ private sector roles in electronic dissem ination. One court decision (IN S v. Chadha, 1983) also has been cited to question the authority of the G overn­ m ent P rinting Office, a legislative agency, to m an­ date th e inclusion o f executive publications in th e DLP. O ne of th e Reagan A dm inistration’s first acts in 1981 was a m oratorium on th e issuance o f new governm ent publications. On April 21,1981, OMB 4U.S. Office of Technology Assessment, Inform ­ ing the Nation: Federal Inform ation Dissemination in an Electronic Age (W ashington, D .C.: G overn­ m ent P rinting Office, 1988). 5Ib id .,2 7 . issued a directive th at F e d e ra l agencies conduct a com prehensive review o f existing publications to elim inate waste and duplication. A series o f further OM B bulletins and circulars followed. T he best- known of these initiatives, “Reform 88,” noted that agencies h ad not done enough to red u ce their publication program s and m an d ated th a t 16 p e r ­ c e n t o f all governm ent periodicals and pam phlets be elim inated.6 “Reform 88” was followed by th e revision of OM B C ircular A-76 (perform ance of com m ercial activities) in 1983, increased emphasis on the appli­ cation o f th e E isen h o w er-era C ircular A-25 (user fees), and a revision o f C ircular A-3 (control of g overnm ent periodical publications), originally issued by the form er B ureau o f the B udget in 1922. C ircular A-76 d ire c te d agencies to study services which could be perform ed by private firms, includ­ ing libraries and information services, for contract­ ing out. T he libraries o f th e D e p a rtm en ts o f E n ­ ergy, Labor, and H ousing and U rban D evelop­ m ent, and th e National O ceanic and A tm ospheric Adm inistration (NOAA), am ong others, have been c o n tra cte d out to private firms u n d e r this regula­ tion. H ow ever, five efforts to c o n tra ct out NTIS operations in th e early 1980s failed to dem onstrate th a t th e specific functions of th a t agency could be p e rfo rm e d at less cost by th e private sector. C ircu lar A-25, issued in 1959 by th e form er B ureau o f th e B udget (O M B ’s p redecessor), p e r ­ mits F ederal agencies to im pose charges for indi­ viduals receiving special b enefits which are not accorded to th e g eneral public from F e d e ra l p ro ­ gram s. Such u se r fees w ere to be based on th e actual cost to th e g overnm ent of providing such special services. C ircular A-3 originally provided guidelines for agency periodical publishing p ro ­ gram s. In May 1985, how ever, OM B issued a r e ­ vised Circular A-25 which “provided that an OM B- approved control system (as d ire c te d in OMB B ulletin 81-16) to m onitor publications program s be continued, that only those periodicals necessary to co n d u ct public business re q u ire d by law be approved, and th at publications be p re p a re d and dissem inated as cost effectively as possible.”7 T h e OM B p ro n o u n c e m e n t with th e m ost far- reaching implications, however, has been Circular A -130, rele ase d in final form on D e c e m b e r 12, 1985. Citing the Paperw ork Reduction Act, various o th er statutes and previous OM B and Presidential 6Peter H em on and Charles R. McClure, Federal Inform ation Policies in the 1980’s: Conflicts and Issues (N orw ood, N.J.: Ablex P ublishing C orp., 1987), 232,234-36. 7R ichard Laska, “Discussion Forum : Initiation of U ser F ee P rogram by F e d e ra l A gencies,” G ov­ e rn m e n t In form ation Q uarterly, 6, no.2 (1989): 121-23. 6 5 2 / C & R L N ew s directives as its authority, C ircular A-130 m an ­ d a te d th a t F e d e ra l agencies: 1) p ro d u ce a nd dis­ sem inate information only to the extent required by statute; 2) make cost-benefit assessm ents o f infor­ m ation products; 3) utilize maximum feasible reli­ ance on th e private sector for inform ation dissem i­ nation; 4) not offer products or services in com pe­ tition w ith those bein g o ffered or w hich m ight potentially be provided by the private sector; and 5) im pose u se r fees to recover costs w h erev er p os­ sible.8 C ircular A-130 clearly re p re sen te d a philo­ sophical shift away from active dissem ination to ­ w ard passive, fee-based “distribution on d e m a n d ” to those with the knowledge and resources to locate and acquire F ed eral inform ation. O M B ’s privatization policies receiv ed a m ajor te st w ith th e A dm inistration’s 1986-88 effo rt to privatize th e e n tire N TIS. T h e D e p a rtm e n t o f C om m erce’s April 28,1986, an n o u n cem en t in the Federal R egister o f plans to consider “co n tracting out” that agency’s operations drew immediate, sharp criticism from th e library, user, and industrial r e ­ search com m unities. In fact, 90 p e rc e n t o f th e letters received from a broad cross-section of users and in te rm e d ia rie s du rin g a 45-day co m m en t p e ­ riod opposed th e proposal.9 N evertheless, th e Ad­ m inistration p ro ceed ed doggedly with its efforts to privatize th e agency d esp ite recom m endations to th e co n tra ry by a C o m m erce D e p a rtm e n t Task F orce on NTIS Privatization, hearings investigat­ ing th e privatization issue by th e H ouse S ubcom ­ m ittee on Science, Research, andTechnology, and bans on NTIS privatization in se rte d in legislation passed separately by the House and Senate in 1987. T h a t initiative was finally d e fe a te d by pro h ib ito ry provisions in th e tra d e bill and th e N ational In sti­ tu te of Standards andT echnology (NIST) au thori­ zation bill in 1988 after a final a tte m p t was m ade to privatize NTIS as apilot employee stock ownership program !10 A lthough th e A dm inistration has failed in its a ttem p ts to c o n tra c t out N TIS operations, it has succeeded in some areas. OMB C ircular A-130 still stands as a binding policy directive for all executive branch agencies. Initiatives to dissem inate D e p a rt­ m ent o f A g riculture (USDA) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) information through 8U.S. Office of M anagem ent and Budget, Circu­ lar No. A-130, “M anagem ent o f F e d e ra l In fo rm a­ tion R esources,” Dec. 12,1985. 9U.S. N ational Technical Inform ation Service, N T IS P rivatization S tu d y Responses to A p ril 28, 1986 Federal R egister N otice R equest f o r Public C o m m e n t (Springfield, Va.: N ational T echnical Inform ation Service, 1986). PB86-211240. 10U.S. D e p a rtm en t o f C om m erce, “R equest for Inform ation: Privatization of th e N ational T echni- cal Inform ation Service,” Jan. 20,1988. commercial vendors have already been undertaken. OM B vigorously opposed an effort in early 1989 by th e in d e p e n d e n t F e d e ra l M aritim e C om m ission (FM C) to make shippers’tariff filings directly avail­ able th ro u g h an agency d issem ination program , even th o u g h th e ship p in g in d u stry favored th e F M C proposal. T h e D e p a rtm e n t o f C o m m erce, citing th e P aperw ork R eduction Act and A-130 as th e policy in stru m en ts guiding its planning effort, solicited public co m m en t on its own proposal for electronic dissemination programs in August 1988.11 In th e m idst o f this general w ithdraw al from a stance supporting active dissem ination program s, th e F ed eral governm ent has taken several access­ e n h an cin g initiatives. In 1987 P re sid e n t Reagan issued Executive O rd e r 12591, a directive p ro m o t­ ing tra n s fe r o f federally dev elo p ed technologies from governm ent laboratories to th e industrial and academ ic research sectors. T he Japanese T e c h n i­ cal L ite ra tu re Act o f 1986 c re a te d a n e w program for enhancing access to foreign technical inform a­ tion, re fleeting c oncern w ith th e U.S. com petitive position in th e world economy. Finally, the Glenerin D eclaration com m itted th e U nited States, Canada, and G re a t B ritain to low ering barriers th a t d im in ­ ished access to inform ation w ithin th e ir own coun­ tries and betw een them selves. O n balance, how ever, agencies have b e e n dis­ couraged from undertaking new initiatives, forced to justify existing program s, encouraged to impose u se r fees, p ro d d e d to expand use o f private firms for dissem ination, and generally be e n m oved to ­ w ard a stance em phasizing m inim al availability requirem ents rather than active dissemination. This shift has occurred w ithout regard to dissem ination form at, b u t it establishes th e structure u n d e r which E D I program s will develop unless C ongress p r o ­ vides clear guidance to th e contrary. Activities and issues in 1989 Office o f M anagem ent and B udget T h e year began w ith a re q u e s t by th e O ffice of M an ag em en t and B udget for com m ents on its “Advance N otice o f F u r th e r Policy D evelopm ent on D issem ination of Inform ation”;12 the proposed policy s u p p le m e n te d guidance fo u n d in OM B Circular A-130 and incorporated OMB C ircular A- 3. M any in th e library, F e d e ra l agency, C o n g re s­ sional, and public in te re s t com m unities believed th a t it w ould have re d u c e d th e p u b lic ’s ability to obtain g o vernm ent inform ation in e lectro n ic for- nProposed Commerce Policies on Dissemination o f Inform ation in Electronic Format. (Washington, D C .: U.S. D e p a rtm e n t o f C o m m erce, A ugust 5, 1988). l2Federal R egister 54, no.2 (January 4, 1989): 214-20. S e p te m b e r 1 9 8 9 / 653 mat. OMB receiv ed o ver tw o h u n d re d le tte rs o comment on th e n otice, over tw o-thirds o f th e m from librarians. In June OM B form ally w ith d rew th e e a rlie r notice and issued th e “Second Advance N otice o f Further Policy D evelopm ent on Dissem ination o Inform ation.”13 In this notice OM B r e s ta te d its fundamental philosophy as “th e obligation o f gov­ ernm ent to m ake inform ation readily available to the public on equal term s to all citizens; th a t to th e extent th e flow o f inform ation from th e g o v e rn ­ ment to th e public can be e n h a n ce d by th e p a rtic i­ pation of th e private sector, such p a rticip a tio n should be encouraged; and that participation by th e private sector s u p p le m en ts [em phasis added] b u t does not rep la ce th e obligations of gov ern m en t. These principles apply w hatever th e form, prin ted , electronic [em phasis a d d e d ], or other, in which th e information has be e n collected or sto red .”14 OMB plans to p ro ce e d w ith th e developm ent o a new draft policy sta te m e n t th a t will refo rm u late both inform ation co llection and in fo rm atio n d is­ semination policy, including th e p e rtin en t sections of OMB C ircu la r A-130, th e January 1989 n otice, and its no tice o f A ugust 7, 1987,15 c o n c e rn in g electronic collection o f inform ation. The P aperw ork R e d u c tio n Act also m a n d a te d OMB to provide advice and guidance to F e d e ra l agencies on th e acquisition and use o f a u to m atic data processing, teleco m m u n icatio n s, a n d o th e r information technology for m anaging inform ation resources. In May 1989, OMB, citingthis authority, requested public com m ents on a proposal to e sta b lish a C e n te r for Inform ation Technology M anage m ent.16 T h e p u rp o se o f such a c e n te r w ould b e to provide agencies with advice and assistance reg ard ing th e tec h n ica l m an a g e m e n t o f m ajor g o v e rn m ent inform ation technology initiatives, n o t to design or build systems, o r provide o th e r functions already available from o th e r sources. M ost of O M B ’s in fo rm atio n reso u rce m a n a g e m ent activities d u rin g th e p ast eight years have been in itia te d u n d e r th e auth o rity of th e P a p e r work R e d u c tio n Act (PRA ). A uthorization for th e PRA (U .S.C . 44, C h a p te r 35) expires S e p te m b e r 30,1989, forcing som e legislative action on th e Act. A consensus is growing among all interested parties that th e language o f th e p rin tin g laws, T itle 44, C hapter 3 (G overnm entP rintingO ffice), C h a p te r 5 (p ro d u c tio n and p ro c u re m e n t o f p rin tin g and 13Federal R eg ister 54, no. 114 (June 15, 1989): 25554-59. 14Ibid., 25557. 15Federal R egister 52, no. 152 (August 7,1987): 29454-57. l6Federal R eg ister 54, n o .96 (May 12, 1989): 20661. f b inding), C h a p te r 19 (D e p o sito ry L ibrary P ro ­ gram ) needs u p d a tin g to re fle c t technological changes. All o f th e s e factors have c o m b in e d to g e n e ra te a lot o f in te rest on Capitol H ill in revising T itle 44. Congress At least th re e C ongressional co m m ittee s/su b - c o m m ittee s are actively discussing revisions. In April 1989 th e S u b c o m m itte e on G o v e rn m e n t Inform ation, Justice and A griculture, H ouse Gov­ e rn m e n t O perations C om m ittee17 began a series of hearings on F e d e ra l inform ation policies and p rac ­ tices. T h e p u rp o se o f th e hearings was to review c u rre n t issues rela tin g to: 1) FO IA ; 2) d issem in a­ tio n o f F e d e ra l g o v e rn m e n t in fo rm atio n th ro u g h e le c tro n ic m eans; and 3) th e ap p a ra tu s for e s ta b ­ lishing F ederal inform ation dissem ination policies. C o n g re ssm a n W ise has in tro d u c e d H .R . 2381 to a m en d T itle 44, U.S.C. to reform th e inform ation d issem in a tio n policy functions o f th e D ire c to r o f OM B. Sections o f this bill have b e e n in co rp o rate d into th e Paperw ork R eduction Act reauthorization legislation w hich has b e e n d ra fte d by th e full Com m ittee. T h e full G ov ern m en t O perations C o m m itte e 18 c o n d u c te d hearings on th e se issues on July 20 and 27, A ugust 1 and 2. C onyers has d ra fte d a bill to re a u th o riz e PRA; how ever, th e d raft may be p u b ­ lished as a co m m ittee p rin t w ith o u t a bill n um ber. T he form o f publication selected m ight indicate the direction which th e C om m ittee will take in th e final analysis. M ost o f th e provisions o f H .R . 2381 w ere in c o rp o ra te d in to th e d raft o f th e C o n y ers’ p r o ­ p o se d bill w hich was available in late July. T he W orking G roup on G o v ern m en t Inform ation Pol­ icy, in which th e Association o f R esearch Libraries, ALA, and o th er public in terest groups have partici­ p a te d , has review ed a n d c o m m e n te d on several drafts o f C o n y e rs’ p ro p o se d legislation as well as drafts o f H .R . 2381. T h e S u bcom m ittee on P ro c u re m e n t and P rin t­ ing, House Administration C om m ittee,19 conducted h earings in M ay a n d Ju n e to review th e p rin tin g ch ap ters o fT itle 44, U.S.C., because o f changes in e le c tro n ic inform ation form at, d istrib u tio n , and technology. W itnesses from agencies and r e p r e ­ sentatives from th e library com m unity, th e in fo r­ m ation industry, th e p rin tin g industry, and th e p u b lic in te re s t groups testified; Bates has d rafted 17Bob W ise, D-W V, C h a ir, S u b c o m m itte e on G overnm ent Inform ation, Justice and Agriculture, H ouse G overnm ent O perations C om m ittee. 18John C onyers, Jr., D -M I, C hair, H ouse G ov­ e rn m e n t O perations C om m ittee. 19Jim B ates, D -CA , C h air, S u b c o m m itte e on P ro c u re m en t and Printing, H ouse A dm inistration C om m ittee. f f ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ 6 5 4 / C & R L N e w s bills providing for a m ajor revision of Title 44 and a G P O -N T IS m erger; h e plans to in tro d u c e one or m ore bills this year. O n th e Senate side, th e G overnm ental Affairs S u b co m m ittee on G o v e rn m e n t In fo rm a tio n and Regulations20 has also conducted hearings to exam­ ine th e quality and uses o f the F ederal inform ation in frastru ctu re and to consider th e reauthorization of th e Paperw ork Reduction Act, including consid­ eration of changing inform ation technology, elec­ tronic dissemination andmanagementissues. Binga- m an is expected to in tro d u c e legislation to re a u ­ th o riz e th e P aperw ork R edu ctio n Act som etim e this fall. G overnm ent Printing Office An unexpected c o ntribution to th e E D I d e b a te cam e from G ra n t D. M oy Jr., G P O ’s G eneral C ounsel, on May 22, 1989, w hen he issued an opinion which authorized G PO to d istrib u te F e d ­ eral agency p ublications in e le c tro n ic form at to depository libraries.21 This disapproves a 1982 GPO G eneral C o u n se l’s opinion w hich s uggested th a t only traditionally p rin te d publications could be m ade available to depository lib raries. G P O ’s long-aw aited electro n ic dissem ination pilot projects finally receiv ed congressional a p ­ proval for im p lem e n ta tio n in May 1989. T he five pilot p ro je c t p a rticip an ts rem aining include th e B ureau o f th e C ensus, Joint C o m m ittee on P rin t­ ing, E n v iro n m en tal P ro te c tio n Agency, D e p a r t­ m en t of C o m m erce, and th e D e p a rtm e n t o f E n ­ ergy. The p ro jects include th re e C D -R O M p ro d ­ ucts (the various censuses, th e Toxic Release In ven ­ tory, th e C ongressional R ecord) and two online products (the C om m erce D e p a rtm en t’s Electronic Bulletin Board and Energy Research Abstracts'). T h e N ational C om m ission on L ibraries and In fo rm atio n Science (N C L IS) jo in e d th e list o f players in July by holding a public h earin g to co n sid er th e tre n d s w hich th e OTA re p o rt a d ­ dresses. R ep resen tativ es from th e library and in ­ form ation industry com m unities w ere among those who testified. Issues By now it m ust be obvious th a t th e re has b e e n considerable discussion in W ashington recently on F ederal information policies and practices. Most of th e in te re s te d p arties agree on at least two b ro ad principles: 20Jeff Bingaman, D -N M , C hair, Subcom m ittee on G overnm ent Inform ation and Regulation, Sen­ ate G overnm ental Affairs C om m ittee. 21U.S. G overnm ent P rin tin g Office, GPO D is­ sem ination o f Federal Agency Publications in Elec­ tronic Format, m em orandum d a te d May 22,1989. • T h e F e d e ra l g o v e rn m e n t has an affirm ative obligation to disseminate electronic as well as printed g o v e rn m e n t inform ation to th e p u b lic in a useful m a n n e r and at a reaso n ab le cost. • Public access to b o th p rin te d and electro n ic g o v ern m en t inform ation is a public right and a principal function and goal o f F ederal governm ent inform ation policy. T hus, ele c tro n ic inform ation d issem ination system s should serve th e g overn­ m ental mission o f inform ing th e public, as w ell as en h an ce th e ability o f th e public to access govern­ m ent inform ation. It is in th e h o w a n d w h o of tra n sla tin g th ese principles into public policy em b o d ied in T itle 44, U .S.C ., th a t th e re are c oncerns and differences. P rim ary am ong th e concerns is th e definition o f a u th o rity for O M B in g o v ern m en t inform ation dissem ination. H .R . 2381 provides a b ro ad m an ­ date and cen tralizes a u th o rity over all F e d e ra l agencies for im p lem en tatio n o f inform ation m an ­ agem ent (including dissem ination) functions with the director of OMB. C entralized responsibility for inform ation m anagem ent m ust be w eighed against th e p o ten tia l for b u rea u c ratic stifling o f effective agency application o f inform ation technologies and th e p o te n tia l for m isuse o f p o w er th a t inhibits inform ation flow. W e also m ust consider how plac­ ing a broad m andate which encom passes oversight o f inform ation collection, regulatory review, b udg­ etary oversight, a ndenforcem entpow ers in asingle agency will im pact F ederal inform ation program s. T h e tra c k re c o rd o f OM B , d e sp ite th e ir re c e n t statem ent of fundam ental philosophy, has not been supportive of information dissem ination programs. T he experience o f th e F ederal M aritim e C om m is­ sion is only one o f m any instances in w hich OM B has o p e ra te d to m inim ize th e go v ern m en t role in inform ation dissem ination at th e expense o f public access. Second am ong th e issues with which th e library com m unity should be c o n c ern e d is th e obligation of th e F ederal governm ent to dissem inate its infor­ m ation and to m aintain a diversity o f sources for g o v ern m en t inform ation and a diversity o f access points. O M B C ircu lar A-130 clearly in stru c te d agencies to place maximum feasible reliance on the private sector. This provision in OM B C ircular A- 130 n eed s to be c o rre c te d . F u rth e rm o re , in Sep­ te m b e r 1988 OM B in stru c te d F e d e ra l agencies th a t th ey n e e d n o t com ply w ith th e D epository L ibrary Law (Section 1902, T itle 44 U .S.C .) for inform ation products in electronic form ats. O M B’s p osition on this issue has n o t changed; in th e ir Second A dvance Notice o f F urther Policy Develop­ m en t on D issem ination o f In fo rm a tio n th ey co n ­ tin u e to affirm th a t G PO may n o t require F ed eral agencies to provide e lectro n ic form at p ro d u cts to depository libraries. M any in th e library co m m u n ity recognize th a t S e p te m b e r 1 9 8 9 / 655 partnerships b e tw e en n o n -p ro fit organizations, libraries, or com m ercial v endors a n d th e F e d e ra l government may in d ee d serve th e p u b lic in terest. But it is generally a g re e d th a t any p a rtn e rs h ip adopted by a F e d e ra l agency to su p p la n t its own operation for inform ation dissem ination should be accompanied by a publicly available c o n tra c t th a t explicitly details how C ongressional m an d ates in support of public availability o f inform ation will be fulfilled. T he te s t is n o t w h e th e r a for-profit firm could sustain an inform ation p ro d u ct if the govern­ ment did not have a sim ilar p ro d u c t, b u t ra th e r whether th e re is a leg itim ate gov ern m en tal role and public need in creatin g and d istrib u tin g in fo r­ mation products. Finally, there is concern about th e role which the Government Printing Office will have in relation to dissemination o f p rin t and e le c tro n ic executive agency products. A m endm ents or revisions to th e Paperwork R e d u c tio n Act should be c o n sisten t with oth er sections o f T itle 44, i.e., C h a p te r 17 which req u ires G PO to index a n d catalog g o v ern - mentpublications; and C h ap ter 19, which provides for the depository library p ro g ra m . Implications and outcomes W hat are th e im plications and possible o u t­ comes from th e proposals a n d discussions c u r ­ rently taking place? Possibly th e m o st negative outcome w ould be to m aintain the status quo! M ore and more Federal governm ent inform ation is being collected and dissem inated electronically. The 7,500 electronic inform ation pro d u cts listed in th e G en­ eral A ccounting O ffice study w ere n o t available through trad itio n al dissem ination program s such as the G P O sales program , th e d ep o sito ry library program , o r th e C o n su m e r In fo rm a tio n C e n te r. The latter are th e program s which Congress e sta b ­ lished to provide public access to g o v e rn m e n t in ­ formation. Unless a very clear m essage is d ire c te d to F e d e ra l agencies th a t th e d ep o sito ry library program is an essential inform ation dissem ination channel and th a t electronic inform ation is a p a rt of that program , depository libraries no longer will be able to provide users w ith th e in fo rm atio n th ey need. F u rth e rm o re , as each additional F e d e ra l agency n eg o tiates for its own d issem ination p r o ­ gram, bibliographic co n tro l o f w hat is available, from w hom it is available, and for how m uch is lost. M ore im portantly, if th e private sector becom es the on ly source fo r g o v e rn m e n t inform ation, at least two outcom es are o f concern to all o f u s . F irst of all, th e balance of pow er in our society may shift. Inform ation is pow er. A nd only th o se w ho can afford to pay for it will have it. Secondly, n o t all Federal governm ent inform ation in electronic for­ mat will be econom ically viab le. Will w e c o n tin u e to have access to inform ation on th e environm ent, our health, and o ur educational system ? Unless we have diverse sources and access points for govern­ m e n t inform ation, all o f us stan d to lose. O f course, th e re are costs associated w ith e le c ­ tro n ic d issem ination o f g o v e rn m e n t inform ation ju st as th e r e are costs associated w ith b e in g a depository library for p rin t and m icroform m ate ri­ als. D epository libraries have traditionally assum ed th e costs o f space, e q u ip m e n t, staff, and train in g while th e F ederal g overnm ent provided th e infor­ m ation, i.e ., p rin t o r m icrofiche. A lthough th e ac­ tual costs o f operatin g a depository library have not b e e n fully d o cum ented, it has never b e e n inexpen­ sive. M ore th an 50 p e rc e n t o f th e depository librar­ ies are located in institutions with less th an 500,000 volum es.22 Possible outcom es o f Title 44 revisions m ight be a r e s tru c tu rin g o f th e depo sito ry p ro g ram an d /o r p a rtial su bsidization by th e F e d e ra l governm ent. In In fo rm in g th e N ation, OTA suggests two a lte r­ native fu tu re s f o rth e depository library program . O ne o f th e fu tu re s suggested is a re s tru c tu re d depository library program sim ilar to an ARL p r o ­ posal w hich included th re e levels o f collections and services within th e depository program .23 T echnol­ ogy provides new o p p o rtu n itie s for m aking in fo r­ m ation available. The prem ise on which th e deposi­ tory library program was founded, i.e., geographic location and physical access, b ecom es far less im p o rta n tw ith electronic dissem ination. Action needed As n o te d e a rlie r th e au th o rizatio n for th e PRA expires at th e e n d o f S e p te m b e r 1989. Ideally, reauthorization w ould occur this year. But all th ree su b co m m ittee chairs are new to th e ir positions, as are m any m em bers o f th e ir staffs, and th e ir respon­ sibilities are m any and varied. So although PRA took nearly tw o years to re a u th o riz e in 1984, th e b e s t c o u rse o f action is to be p re p a re d . C arefully rev iew th e docum entation involved in th e discussions, (H .R. 2381, OM B C ircular A -130, Second A dvance Notice o f F urther Policy Develop­ m e n t on D issem ination o f In fo rm a tio n ) a n d c o n ­ sid er th e issues involved. A fter you have ed u c ate d yourself, th en initiate discussions o f th e issues with your faculties, library colleagues, stu d e n ts, and m em bers o f Congress. It is critical th at m em bers of 22U.S. C ongress, Joint C o m m ittee on P rinting, Provision o f Federal G o v e rn m e n t Publications in Electronic Form at to D epository Libraries (W ash­ ington, D .C .: G overnm ent P rin tin g Office, 1984), 59. 23U.S. O ffice o f T echnology A ssessm ent, I n ­ fo rm in g the Nation: Inform ation D issem ination in an E lectronic A ge (W ashington, D .C .: G o v ern ­ m en t P rinting Office, 1988), 158. 6 5 6 / C& R L N ew s Congress, especially those who are m em bers of the Subcom m ittees/C om m ittees involved in th e re a u ­ thorization o f PRA or any o th e r T itle 44 revisions, k n o w how th e ir com m unities, congressional dis­ tricts, and c o n stitu e n ts use go v ern m en t in fo rm a ­ tion, why th e depository library program is im p o r­ tant, and why electronic dissem ination o f inform a­ tion by th e F e d e ra l g o vernm ent is critical to th e econom ic and social w ell-being o f th e ir co n g re s­ sional districts. M onitor and rec o rd exam ples o f y o u r own and your u sers’ problem s, barriers, or o th er difficulties e n c o u n te re d in using F e d e ra l g o v e rn m e n t in fo r­ mation. T he U.S. G eneral Accounting Office (GAO) is c o n d u ctin g a survey and evaluation o f F e d e ra l agencies’ information dissemination program s. GAO is in te rested in establishing a contact w ithin librar­ ies or in stitutions w ho w ould b e willing to discuss experiences w ith F e d e ra l agency d issem ination program s. T hey are specifically in te re ste d in com ­ m ents abo u t inform ation dissem ination activities o f th e U.S. D e p a rtm e n t o f A griculture, th e E n v i­ ro n m e n tal P ro te c tio n Agency, and th e F e d e ra l M aritim e C om m ission b u t will w elcom e o th e r Copyright update C opyright litigation O n April 25 o f this year, eight p u b lish ers filed a suit against K inko’s G raphic C o rporation alleging massive violation o f th e fair use provision o f th e 1976 C opyright Act. C iting th e national chain of photo co p y stores w ith illegally copying large sec­ tions o f copy rig h ted works to be resold to college stu d e n ts, th e suit was b ro u g h t by Basic Books, H a rp e r & Row, R ichard D. Irw in, M cG raw -H ill, W illiam M orrow , P en g u in Books USA, P re n tic e H all, and John W iley in c o n c ert w ith th e Associa­ tion o f A m erican P u b lish e rs. T h e suit, filed in th e U.S. D istrict C o u rt for th e S o u th e rn D istrict o f N ew York, seeks h altin g c u rre n t photocopying practices and u n sp ecified d am ag es. K inko’s p o si­ tion is th at their photocopying of m aterial for course packs falls w ithin th e fair use exem ptions g u id e ­ lines for educational use o f copyrighted m aterials. T h e suit may well have im plications for academ ic libraries even before a decision is reached, p a rticu ­ larly if faculty becom e concerned about th e ir use of course packs and tu rn to th e library for in creased use of curriculum support m aterials through course reserves or o th e r m eans. Legislation O n Ju ly 26,1989, th e Senate Judiciary C om m it­ com m ents as well. Although th e stated deadline for this survey was July 31,1989, GAO has indicated an in terest in receiving com m ents throughout 1989. If you can identify som eone within your institution or a u s e r outside th e academ ic c om m unity w ho is w illing to p a rticip a te , call o r w rite to K en n ard Thom pson, U.S. General Accounting Office, Room 69 0 5 ,4 4 1 G Street, N.W., W ashington, D.C. 20548; (202)275-8018. E lectro n ic dissem ination o f g o v e rn m e n t in fo r­ m ation, as with oth er types o f inform ation, is chang­ ing th e ways in which inform ation and o u r libraries are b e in g used. T h e staff tim e, level and types of expertise, quantity and diversity o f both hardw are and software necessary to assist users has increased. T itle 44 revisions, including electronic dissem ina­ tio n o f g o vernm ent in form ation, will have som e im p a c t on all libraries, so careful atte n tio n should b e given to th e discussions, p ap ers, and legislative p roposals now u nderw ay if an inform ation in fra ­ stru c tu re prom oting access to F ederal inform ation in all form ats is to b e p rese rv ed into th e electronic era. ■ ■ t e e ’s S ubcom m ittee on P aten ts, C opyrights, and T ra d em a rk s a p proved S. 198 a m e n d m e n t, th e C o m p u te r Softw are R ental A m e n d m e n ts A ct of 1989. T h e am endm ent, pro p o sed by th e Software P ublishers Association, w ould establish an exem p­ tio n for no t-fo r-p ro fit libraries allowing th em to circulate software. W. David Laird, C hair o f th e Ad H oc Copyright Subcom m ittee o f ALA’s Legislative C om m ittee testified on b eh alf of ALA in support of this a m e n d m e n t on April 19, 1989. As originally w ritte n , S. 198 specifically denies an exem ption to libraries lending software, even w hen no com m er­ cial p u rp o se is in te n d e d or com m ercial gain r e a l­ ized on th e p a rt o f th e library. T h e S. 198 am e n d ­ m en t is now before th e full Judiciary C o m m ittee. R ecent articles: C opyright and libraries Am erican Libraries, F e b ru ary 1989, has a series o f articles on video and copyright issues. P itm an, Randy. “AV f ro n tie r.” W ilson L ib ra ry B ulletin 63 (April 1989): 90-91. Q u in t, B arbara. “C o n n e c t T im e ” colum n in W ilson Library Bulletin 63 (January 1989): 86, and (F e b ru a ry 1989): 74. R osenberg, V ictor. “Softw are th e ft a n d copy protection. ’’Library Journal 114(February 1,1989): 46. T u rn e r, Judith Axîer. “Parts o f library associa­ S e p te m b e r 1989 / 657 tion’s photocopying policy may be used by K inko’s in its defense in law suit.” C hronicle o f H ig h e r Education, May 10,1989, A14. Update articles on copyright legislation Fields, H ow ard. “H o u se gets bill fortifying in ­ tent on states vs. fed e ra l cop y rig h t.” P ublishers R W f y , M arch 2 4 ,1 9 8 9 ,1 4 . Fields, Howard. “Suprem e C ourt rejects second 11th A m en d m en t case in m o n th .” P ublishers Weekly, A p ñ \ 7 , 1989,36. Fields, H ow ard. “H ouse to pu sh 11th a m e n d ­ ment rem edy; O m an voices s u p p o rt.” P ublishers Weekly, April 2 8 ,1 9 8 9 ,1 8 . “Software piracy bill a m e n d e d to p e rm it library lending.” L ibrary Journal 114 (M ay 15,1989): 16. “Valauskas, E dw ard. “Library exem ption a dded to Softw are R en tal Bill in U.S. S e n a te .” L ib ra ry W o rk sta tio n R ep o rt 6, no.5 (M ay 1989): 8. A dditional inform ation T h e Society o f A m erican A rc h iv ists N e w sle tte r o f M arch 1989 co n tain s an excellen t review o f co p y rig h t new s p r e p a r e d by th e SAA C opyright Task F o rce. Bob Byrd, D uke U niversity is c h a iro f this Task F orce. D o you have c o n c e rn s o r c o m m e n ts r e la te d to copyright issues in academ ic libraries? F orw ard to: B a rb a ra M acA dam , C h a ir, A C R L C opyright C o m m ittee, U n d e rg ra d u a te Library, T h e U niver­ sity o f M ichigan, Ann A rbor, M I 48109-1185. ■ ■ Recruitment o f underrepresented minorities ACRL Past P resid en t Joseph Boissé charged th e Task F orce on R e c ru itm e n t o f U n d e rre p re se n te d Minorities “to identify strategies which can be used to recruit to academ ic librarianship individuals from u n d e rre p re s e n te d m inority groups; to evalu­ ate the p o te n tia l effectiveness o f th e se strategies; and to re c o m m e n d a co u rse o f action w hich th e ACRL can p u rsu e d u rin g th e next d e c a d e .” At th e first m e e tin g o f th e T ask F o rc e, h e ld at ALA M idw inter, J a n u a ry 9 ,1989, P resident Boissé explained th e n e e d to form such a group. H e stated that A C RL n e e d s to m o re closely rese m b le th e diversified p o p u la tio n o f th e U n ited States. This means th a t a g re a te r e ffo rt to a ttra c t m inority groups is im perative. Alively brainstorm ing session ledby Edith Fisher, Task F o rc e chair, g e n e ra te d th e following ideas: • N e e d to r e c ru it at th e high school level; • N e e d to w ork w ith o th e r organizations, e.g., college p lac e m e n t groups; • N eed to solicit invitations to m eetings o f these groups; • N e e d to rea c h c a re e r counselors; • N e e d to talk w ith o th e r groups to e m p h asize positive aspects o f lib rarian sh ip , e.g., w ork w ith technologies/inform ation science; • N eed to spotlight m inority librarians in library publications; • N e e d to have m inority m en to rin g p ro g ra m s; • N e e d to p u b licize th o se librarians m aking “big bucks”; • N e e d to em p h a size th a t m oney can be m ade at o th e r levels besid es th e d ire c to r level; • N e e d to netw o rk m ore w ith school librarians and o th e r professional associations; • N e e d to know m o re ab o u t school lib ra ria n s , w h a t th e y do, a n d use th e m as ro le m odels; • S end s u p p o rt sta ff to lib rary school/look at tu itio n waivers; • Link m inority librarian with m inority student. All o f th e s e ideas rec o n firm w h at ALA’s O ffice for L ibrary P e rso n n e l R esources has id e n tifie d as reasons for p o o r re c ru itm e n t efforts: 1. M inority enrollm ent in graduate library schools is declining. 2. Lack o f scholarships aim ed tow ards m in o ri­ ties. 3. Status im age o f librarians and low salaries are a b arrier. 4. C o m p e titio n w ith o th e r c a re e rs seem s to be taking its toll. O n Ju n e 26, at ALA A nnual C o n fe re n c e in D al­ las, th e Task F o rc e d iscussed p ro g ram ideas, vari­ ous contem porary readings, and began co n cen trat­ ing on develo p in g a re p o rt. T h e Task F o rc e is g a th e rin g in fo rm a tio n on stra te g ies b e in g u s e d successfully in academ ic li­ b ra rie s to r e c ru it th e u n d e rre p re s e n te d . All ideas and com m ents can be se n t to th e chair o r m em bers o f th e T ask F o rc e: Janice B eaudin, M u lticu ltu ra l O u tre a c h C o o rd in a to r, U niversity o f W isconsin; E d ith M a u re e n F is h e r, C h air, E th n ic S tudies Librarian, U niversity of California, San Diego; E m C laire Knowles, Assistant D ean, GSLIS, Simmons C ollege, B oston; Ichiko M orita, A ssociate Profes- so r/H e a d — C ataloging, O hio S tate U niversity, Colum bus. T h e next m eetin g is scheduled for ALA M idw in­ t e r in Chicago, Jan u ary 8 ,1 9 9 0 ,9 :3 0 -1 1 :00 a.m .— E m Claire Know les, G raduate School o f L ib ra ry a n d In fo rm a tio n Science, Sim m ons College. ■ ■