Electronic government information and the depository library program: Paradise found?

Electronic Government Information and the ~e~sitory Library Program: Paradise Found?

Robert E. Dugan* Joan F. Cheverie

During the 198Os, Federal information dissemination began a transition to significant use of electronic formats. Because of legal, policy, and other constraints, these electronic products and services were not included in the depository library program, raising concerns about the availability and accessibility of Federal information for the public. Librarians and others advocated that access and availability of Federal information would be increased through inclusion of electronic products in the depository library program; surveys and reports were used to validate depositor libraries’ capabi~ti~ to accommodate electronic formats. Problems were encountered as the formats were introduced into the depository library program; useful experiences were gained. inclusion of electronic products into the program has not solved all of the problems concerning access and availability of Federal information; however, dissemination of electronic formats to depository libraries has increased availability and access.

INTRODUCTION used electronic formats to disseminate In the 1980s, Federal agencies increasingly i~ormatjon. Because of legal interpretations and constraints concerning Title 44 of the United States Code ( U.S. C.), consensus emerged that electronic products need not be distributed through the Government Printing Office (GPO). As a result, and oftentimes without knowledge of their publication, participants in the Federal depository library program failed to receive these electronic products and services.

* Direct atl correspondence ro: Robert E. Dugan, Associate University Librarian, Louinger Library, Georgeiown University, 37th and 0 Streets, NW, Washington, D. C. 200.57. Government Information Quarterly, Vdume 9, Number 3, pages 269-289 Copyright @ 1992 by JAI press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 074%624X

270

GOVERNMENT

INFORMATION

QUARTERLY

Vol. ~/NO. 311992

As depository libraries discovered the availability of these electronic formats, demand for their inclusion in the GPO’s depository library program (DLP) increased. Arguments advocating inclusion of these products centered around the issues of access and av~lability of Federal information; lobbying efforts to raise awareness of the necessity of making this information available to the nation intensified. After nearly a decade of debate, electronic products are included in the DLP. A retrospective look at this effort is warranted. What did the depository library community want, and why? What were the constraints? How did the GPO respond to the needs articulated by the library community? What problems were encountered by the GPO and the depository libraries when introducing the products? Further, did the inclusion of the electronic formats meet the needs and expectations of the depository libraries? Has information access and availability for users increased and improved? Has the inclusion of electronic products changed the structure and relations between two of the principles within the depository library community-the GPO and the depository libraries? Was the long and arduous effort worth it? WtiAT WAS WANTED AND WHY All sectors of America society and business want and use information about, compiled, and distributed by the Federal government. Over the last thirty years this information has increasingly been stored and/ or disseminated in electronic form in addition to paper and microfiche. Early on, magnetic tape used by timeshare computer systems was a popular format. More recently a variety of machine-readable formats, including Compact Disc - Read Only Memory (CD-ROM) and database files which may be viewed or transferred (downloaded) to a local system from a remote computer system or through an electronic bulletin board (EBB) gateway, have emerged, supplementing if not replacing, magnetic tapes. The Problem

During the 1980s Federal information dissemination began the transition to significant use of electronic formats.’ Because much of the information formatted electronically was not being disseminated to depository libraries through the GPO’s DLP as were the traditional paper and microfiche formats, concern over the lack of accessibility to and availability of the information was expressed by librarians, users of the information, and others in the information community. Efforts to debate and redress these newer formats often included justifying why and how the GPO and the depository Iibraries should incorporate electronic products into the DLP. A legislated mission of the DLP is to provide access to and availability of Federal government information for the nation. As Federal agencies made increasing use of electronic formats, limiting the depository libraries to paper and microfiche would, over time, reduce the type and amount of Federal information available to the public, and erode the congressional intent as embodied in the Depository Library Act of 1962.2 In addition, the Executive Branch’s Federal i~ormation policy as stipulated by the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Circular No. A-130, finds that “depository libraries provide a kind of information “safety net' to the public, an existing institutional

Electronic Government lniormation

and the Depository Library Program

271

mechanism that guarantees a minimum level of availability of government information to all members of the public” and that “the Federal Government shall rely upon the depository library system to provide free citizen access to public information.“3 However, a “minimal level” may suggest offering the least possible amount (analogous to minimum wage pay) and does not necessariIy require that an “adequate” amount of information is held within, or distributed by, the safety nets4 Supporting the Inclusion of Electronic Products

Advocates of the DLP argued that “access to government information is a public right that must not be restricted by administrative barriers, geography, ability to pay, or format.“’ In order for depository libraries to fulfill their role as a key channel for public access to information, the GPO needs to develop and maintain a strong program to support the provision of government information to the nation by providing electronic products.6 Supporters for the inclusion of electronic products in the DLP supplemented the issues of access and availability with additional arguments. In some instances electronic formats were a more cost-effective method of delivery of information to users than were print and microfiche dissemination; advances in the technology resulted in subsequent decreases in unit costs.7 Additio~~ly, dissemination of information electronically, such as large datasets, would provide depository libraries and their users with data previously unavailable to them directly or conveniently.8 Inclusion of electronic products in the DLP was argued in studies, documents, and surveys during the late 1980s. Perhaps the most important catalyst of the effort was informing the Nation: Federal r~for~~tjo~ ~~~se~i~ution in an Electronic Age (see note 1). It examined several key topics reievant to Title 44, U.S.C., which provides the primary statutory framework for the Federal government’s printing and information dissemination activities and related functions of various governmental agencies, including the GPO, Superintendent of Documents (SuDocs), and the DLP. Issues analyzed and discussed included the roles and responsibilities of the numerous factions within the information community concerned with access to and availability of Federal information. This 1988 report concluded that exclusion of electronic formats from the DLP would reduce public access to government information through the depository libraries. The report urged congressional action to resolve Federal information dissemination issues and to set the direction of Federal activities for the future.’ Several members of the library and information sciences community entered the debate concerning electronic information dissemination through the development or revision of policy principles. Associations and organizations often articulate information principles as a guide to inform their members of the body’s position concerning information issues, and as an effort to influence pending information policy legislation, as well as agency rules, regulations, and policy guidelines and directives.” Those adopting principles concerning i~ormation policy include the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS), and the Information Industry Association (IIA).” The American Library Association’s (ALA) Government Documents Round Table (GODORT) adopted principles in 1990 which affirmed that access to government information is

272

GOVERNMENT

INFORMATION

QUARTERLY

Vol. ~/NO. 311992

a public right, and that information should be disseminated in a manner and format, including electronic, which promotes its usefulness to the public.i2 Numerous surveys documented the ability and needs of depository libraries to accommodate and provide access to new electronic technologies and information formats. A 1984 survey of depository libraries by the Joint Committee on Printing’s Ad Hoc Committee on Depository Library Access to Federal Automated Databases concluded that there was a wide array of computer equipment already in place in depository libraries or their parent institutions, and that many of the libraries regularly make use of time-sharing services for searching databases, both Government and non-Govemment.‘3

A survey conducted by the General Accounting Office (GAO) in early 1988 found that 94% of the regional and 82% of the selective depository libraries reported having microcomputers with modems for receiving and transmitting data online; 71Yc of the regionals and 37% of the selectives had access to equipment to use CD-ROMs; and 56% of the regionals and 35% of the selectives could use a mainframe computer to provide access to data on magnetic tape and/or disk.14 The results of this survey led OTA to conclude that “depository libraries are increasingly incorporating new technologies in support of user services and operations.“*5 Results from a DLP survey in December 1990 found that 74% of all depository libraries owned CD-ROM equipment, an increase of 40% over the findings of the 1988 GAO survey.16 Products and Services Wanted

Surveys and discussion also provided information concerning what the depository libraries wanted for electronic products and services. In October 1987, the Depository Library Council to the Public Printer requested acquisition of all electronic products to be produced by the U.S. Bureau of the Census.‘7 A year later the Council requested that the GPO identify library products produced by Federal agencies and actively solicit these products for depository distribution.‘* The 1988 GAO survey found that over 90% of the depository libraries wanted a comprehensive index to Federal information made available through online access or on CD-ROM. Other requested electronic products and services included an integrated database of key Federal statistical sources, the Federal Register, the Congressional Record, and congressional committee calendars and bill status information.” The depository libraries also wanted i~ormation~ support. In 1989, the Council urged the GPO to include a regular column in Administrative Notes to provide depository libraries with timely notification of developments in electronic media so that the depositories would have adequate time and sufficient information to prepare for receipt and use of such products.” In brief, a majority of library organizations characterized the introduction of electronic formats into the DLP as “an opportunity to make Government information useful and more timely, and . . . an opportunity to achieve a higher level of service to constituents.“*’ Electronic products enhance availability and access to many types of information, and failure to include these products within the depository library program

Hectronic

Government /n~ormation

and the DepositoryLibraryProgram

273

could create or exacerbate inequities in public access to such informationz2 GODORT stated that the “electronic GPO” is mandatory and that there should be full inclusion of information in electronic formats in the DLP. It was envisioned that this inclusion may require that the DLP “be reorganized to bring it into the electronic age while maintaining and expanding the present level of services, including electronic services.“23 EARLY PROBLEMS

CONCERNING

ELECTRONIC

FORMATS

Wanting to demonstrate the depository library community’s willingness and ability to manage electronic formats, the Depository Library Council recommended, in October 1987, that a subcommittee work with the GPO to develop an FY1989 request for appropriations for pilot projects.24 At the January 1988 ALA meeting, participants discussing ARL’s proposed information policy principles agreed that depository libraries needed to plan how to best receive and incorporate electronic formats, monitor user acceptance, assess costs to the library, and report the results to the rest of the library community.25 OTA also supported the GPO conducting pilot projects, stating that such programs would provide “a chance to test a variety of electronic formats, and discover which one or combination of technologies and formats are appropriate for different kinds of information.” Further, such a provision would be seen “as a continuation of the current multi-tiered approach to disseminating government information,“including the provision of information directly to the individual by the government, by the private sector, and through the SuDocs document sales program and the DLP.26 Although these developments did not anticipate any obstacles, introducing electronic formats as pilot projects (to be discussed later) into the GPO’s DLP was not without early problems. legal Constraints A major legal barrier was whether or not the GPO’s enabling legislation, specifically section 1902 of Title 44, U.S.C., allowed for distribution of electronic products from the DLP. A March 23,1982 opinion from then GPO General Counsel Garrett E. Brown, Jr. determined that the 1962 ~~po~~tory Library Act neither required the GPO to provide depository libraries with free access to unpublished computer databases, nor required the Superintendent of Documents to make published materials available in all possible formats to depository libraries. It was the intent of Congress, the opinion stated, that only printed publications be made available to depositories.27 Although the depository library community wanted electronic products distributed through the DLP, the Information Industry Association (IIA) argued that provision of government information in electronic format via depository libraries would compete with existing private sector vendors, causing them adverse economic consequences.28 The issue raised by the IIA concerned public access and public/private sector relationships. In keeping with the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act, the IIA maintained that Federal agencies should release raw electronic information in whatever formats they maintain it so that the information could be redistributed by existing public and private information resellers.“’

274

GOVERNMENT

INFORMATION

QUARTERLY

Vol. g/No. 3/l 992

However, JCP Chairman Frank Annunzio in a March 25, 1988 letter to Public Printer Ralph Kennickell, Jr., affirmed the Committee’s support of the position that GPO’s authority, as required by Title 44, U.S.C., extended to the “production and distribution of Government publications in these new formats.“30 A year later, a May 22, 1989 opinion from GPO General Counsel Grant G. Moy, Jr., reviewing Brown’s 1982 opinion, stated “to the extent that only traditionally-printed publications could be made available to depository libraries, it [the 1982 opinion] is disapproved.“31 Moy determined that the GPO is authorized to distribute Federal agency publications in electronic format to depository libraries because the legislative history of the 1962 Depository Library Act makes it clear that Congress intended the definition of “government publication” to be all-encompassing and to include every form of publication. The GPO was not required, however, to provide free access to computer databases maintained by Federal agencies if the agency was determined not to disseminate or otherwise publish the information to the general public.32 Therefore, while the GPO cannot require Federal agencies to submit electronic publications for distribution through the DLP as it can with paper formats, agencies may voluntarily submit their electronic products to the GPO. Policy Considerations

Legislative interpretations of the definition of “government publication” and the intent of Title 44, U.S. C., were not the only policy issues encountered early on. Because submission of electronic products was voluntary, some Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Bureau of the Census, wanted librarians to communicate their needs directly to them rather than through the GP0.33 In most instances, however, depository librarians had little experience in directly dealing with agencies. The GPO later agreed with the policy that technical assistance for electronic products distributed through the DLP was more properly addressed to the publisher of the product-the agency itself.34 Two other policy problems concerned format conversion and cost sharing. In 1990, the JCP announced that the CD-ROM version of the cumulative Congressional Record could be expected to replace at least the microfiche format, and might eventually replace the paper version. The Depository Library Council opposed such a decision and repeatedly requested multiple formats for this important title. The JCP also stated that the GPO could not afford to support the telecommunications costs of depository libraries to search remote Federal computer databases online.35 Librarians insisted that the policy would reduce public access to Federal information; the JCP responded that these particular telecommunications costs were too unpredictable to budget annually. The JCP argued that telecommunications was just another aspect of cost sharing to be borne by the depository libraries as a condition to receive free access to government information. Questions arose concerning training and evaluation issues as electronic products were introduced into the DLP. Would adequate training, documentation, and support be provided from the GPO to the depository libraries? Would there be any evaluation mechanism provided to solicit and receive feedback from librarians as well as end users to products?36

Electronic Government

275

Information and the Depository Library Program

Valueand Use Two of the most important were questions and concerns about electronic products in depository libraries: “Will government information become easier to use and thus become more valued in the eyes of the public? Or will the new technology restrict access question is: Were the GPO’s DLP to the computer literate?“37 Another fundamental and the depository libraries’ eagerness to seek and willingness to introduce electronic products into the national and local programs matched by their respective resources to manage the formats?

THE GPO’S EARLY EFFORTS CONCERNING

ELECTRONIC

PRODUCTS

The GPO was late in introducing electronic versions of Federal government information into the DLP. Much of the blame can be traced to Brown’s 1982 opinion that only printed materials be made available to the depository libraries. However, once the JCP gave the GPO initial approval to introduce electronic products into the DLP, the GPO began to move, slowed by the overly ambitious expectations it had of the technology, the complexity of altering its procurement procedures to include electronic formats, and somewhat by its own bureaucracy.

GettingStarted Depository librarians anticipated the potential for electronic products and services almost a decade before their introduction into the DLP. The Depository Library Council passed supporting resolutions in 1980 and 1987 to establish a subcommittee on electronic dissemination to act as a resource during the planning and implementation of test projects.3s However, the first significant effort began, in 1983, when the JCP established the Ad Hoc Committee on Depository Library Access to Federal Automated Data Bases and requested it to “evaluate the feasibility and desirability of providing access to Federal Government information in electronic formats to depository libraries.“3g The Committee submitted reports, in December 1984 and January 1987, strongly recommending implementation of demonstration projects within the depository library community as a means of accurately assessing both effectiveness and economic feasibility. In its 1987 report, the Committee also recommended that the JCP submit a funding request for the projects and that the GPO be responsible for “planning, administration and implementation of the projects.“40 The JCP passed a resolution on April 9, 1987 accepting the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Committee to open the depository program to government information in electronic form. The JCP also urged the GPO to initiate a series of pilot projects to test the “feasibility and practicality” of disseminating electronic formats through the DLP. Despite the resolution, Congress for FY1988 deferred a funding request for the initial pilot projects4’ In response to JCP’s 1987 resolution, and without additional funding, the GPO established the Information Technology Program (ITP) within Library Programs Service (LPS), a part of the DLP to prepare the depository program for electronic projects, to gather information on Federal agency electronic programs, and to assist internal LPS operations.42

276

GOVERNMENT

INFORMATION

QUARTERLY

Vol. g/No. 3/1992

The Pilot Projects In a March 1988 letter, JCP Chairman Annunzio interpreted provisions of Title 44, U.S. C., as extending to government information in all formats. He endorsed pilot and demonstration tests and delivery of government information products in electronic formats. Further, the Subcommittee on Legislative, Committee on House Appropriations, approved the distribution of CD-ROMs to depository libraries.43 With legal interpretations and intents apparently resolved, the JCP approved a GPO research plan on June 29, 1988, nearly fifteen months after its 1987 resolution, selecting five projects as pilots for distribution of electronic products and services to depository libraries through the DLP.44 The projects selected included: U.S. Bureau of the Census’s Test Disc No. 2, a CD-ROM product which contained agricultural data for counties from the 1982 Census of Agriculture and data by zip code from the 1982 Census of Retail Trade. This product was the first CD-ROM distributed by the DLP. Distributed in two stages, the first disc was sent to regionals and a limited number of selective depositories with CDROM experience. After testing at these initial libraries, it was then distributed to the remaining depository libraries in May 1989 to provide them with the opportunity to become familiar with CD-ROM technology.45 U.S. Department of Commerce’s Economic Bulletin Board, a telecommunications test project which ran from June 1 until December 31, 1990. All 1,400 depository libraries were eligible to test this database. One hundred test sites were selected from 361 applications.46 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Toxic Release Inventory, a CD-ROM product distributed to 555 depositories in June 1990.47 Congressional Record, a two disc CD-ROM cumulation of the 1985 edition, distributed to all depository libraries in December 199O.48 U.S. Department of Energy’s Integrated Technical Information System, a telecommunications test project which ran from February through the end of July 1991. The project was intended to provide twenty depository libraries with online access to 1.7 million bibliographic records and a conversion utility to translate records from COSATI, a computer program format used by the Department of Energy and other technical agencies, to a MARC-like format so that participants could download bibliographic records into their online catalogs. However, fewer than 10% of the 255 eligible depository libraries applied to be a test site, and only 17 depositories participated in this pilot project.49 The criteria for selection of the projects included costs, willingness of the publishing agency to participate in the planning of the project, value of the information to the public, size of the publication, frequency of update, search requirements, and the publishing schedule.50 All participating libraries were expected to respond to evaluation surveys to assess the success of each pilot project. In 1989, LPS was assigned the challenge of managing the five electronic dissemination pilot projects, coordinated by the Manager of ITP, with technical assistance from the

Electronic Government hformation

and the Depository library Program

277

GAO.” ITP reported that many libraries bad expressed an interest in pa~icipating in these pilot projects.” As of May 1991, all five pilot projects were essentially over and ITP was in various stages of data collection and analysis.53 Additional Efforts

Planning and implementing the five pilot projects was not the GPO’s only activity concerning electronic products. Because the GPO could not apply Title 44, U.S.C., to require a Federal agency to provide copies of its electronic formats for distribution through the DLP, initiatives were needed to attract Federal agencies to voluntarily submit their electronic info~ation products to the DLP. The GPO identified the procurement process as an area in which its hundred-plus year experience would be valuable. To increase awareness about its desire to include electronic products in its program, the GPO established the Electronic Dissemination Task Force in January 1989. The Task Force was formed to centralize research, planning, liaison work, and intra-agency coordination of activities relative to the electronic dissemination of information.54 The GPO then acquired a CD-ROM publishing system to implement all of the steps necessary for premastering CD-ROM products in-house. The system would also allow for simulation of retrieval of information so that data could be checked before a disc was pressed.s5 In March 1990, the GPO awarded four multiple-use contracts for CD-ROM retrieval software. With these contracts in place, agency publishers could “test drive” various software packages before making a commitment to use a particular program with their CD-ROM. This procurement procedure was intended to encourage agencies to use the GPO’s services and could also result in the inclusion of additional CD-ROMs in the DLP since the GPO could arrange to “ride” issuing agencies’ requisitions to obtain copies of the electronic product for depository libraries. An additional benefit was that repeated application of the same retrieval software with various CD-ROM products would result in fewer software interfaces for users and librarians to learn.*6 The GPO also wanted to involve private sector i~ormation vendors. On November 9,1989, the GPO conducted a public meeting to identify opportunities for dissemination of Federal agency-derived information products and services in electronic formats which could be made available to depository libraries through non-government channels.57 Keeping depository librarians up to date on developments was also important. Responding to requests from the Depository Library Council and others, the GPO initiated a column, “Electronic Corner,” in Administrative Notes on May 22, 1989 (the column’s title was later changed to “ElectroniCorner” [sic]). This regular feature notifies depository librarians of forthcoming electronic products and passes on news and information pe~aining to electronic dissemination of information.s8 PROBLEMS

ENCOUNTERED,

OR PARADISE LOST

As already discussed, several problems arose during the planning, introduction, and inclusion of electronic products into the DLP. However, many other issues and problems were encountered as the electronic products made their way into widespread use in depository libraries.

278

GOVERNMENT

INFORMATION

QUARTERLY

Vol. g/No. 311992

Technical Aspects

To begin, some questioned the suitability of CD-ROM as a data medium. It has been declared “dead” or, at least, certainly “less accessible to the end user” compared with i~ormation stored and retrieved from online databases. CD-ROM systems are difficult to maintain because of constant equipment failures and the technical problems of managing Local Area Networks (LANs). Accessing information on a CD-ROM is slowed by the drive compared to hard drive systems, and is slowed further when networking numerous workstations to a single file server. CD-ROMs are too small because each disc holds only 600 megabytes, and many products now require more than one disc. The medium is also too diverse and users are seldom willing to explore the complexities of a database or negotiate the different interfaces between themselves and the data. It is out of date because of the lag time necessary to “publish and disseminate” the disc. CD-ROM is too large because an entire workstation is needed to run it. It is also too expensive when networking workstations to a file server because of necessary copyright contracts for multiple access to a single product.5g Further, some have questioned the viability of the CD-ROM medium to store and access data over a span of years. To some in the depository library community, the unknown factor of archival quality of the CD-ROM disc reinforces the importance of paper copy as a permanent record.6o Policy Aspects

The conflict concerning the format of specific titles frames several policy issues. For example, the Depository Library Council wanted the cumulative edition of the ~o~gress~on~l Record available in another format in addition to the CD-ROM produced during the pilot projects. However, the Council also recommended that forthcoming issues of the Monthly Catalog be converted to CD-ROM format, and retrospectively to July 1976.6’ Other than for archival purposes, no additional criteria have been identified to explain why individual titles should be in specific formats. In another aspect of this format’s conflict, the depository library community has often requested that it be provided with format alternatives and options (paper, microfiche, and electronic) when selecting information items. Returning to the two Genera1 Counsel opinions of the 1980s already discussed, the GPO is apparently not required to offer any title in multiple formats to the DLP. A 1991 GPO General Counsel opinion definitively states that depository libraries are not entitled to each and every medium in which a government publication is offered. If there are a multiplicity of formats, the GPO must determine which format(s) to provide free to the depositories.62 Another policy question concerned the legality of depository libraries charging the public for accessing information supplied through the DLP. Some depository libraries when faced with the need to fund the acquisition of automated information technologies, the telecommunications costs associated with accessing remotely held government information databases, and the staff resources necessary to utilize the electronic products and services, wanted to pass on some or all of the direct and/ or indirect costs to the users of the information. The GPO’s General Counsel concluded in a March 1991 opinion that Section 1911, Title 44, US. C., prohibits depository libraries from charging the public for the use of government publications furnished under the DLP,

Electronic Government

information and the Depository Library Program

279

because government information presented in an including electronic products, electronic format constitutes a “government publication” within the meaning of Title 44, USC., 1901.63 The opinion further stated that when a Federal agency publishes a Government publication exclusively in an electronic format, the agency is responsible for the costs of furnishing access to the database and GPO is obligated to pay the costs of conveying that Government information to the depository libraries in an electronic format or in such other format(s) as may be produced and made available under the Program. This would include the payment of telecommunications costs for the transmission of online publications when published only in that format. However, such obligation may be limited, and must be viewed in the context of available funds and Program priorities, as determined by the GPO, the JCP and the Congressional appropriations committees.64

Therefore, depository libraries cannot charge users to access electronic information provided through the DLP even if providing such access becomes an economic burden to the library. Although the GPO is required to fund electronic access charges for the depositories, that requirement is only valid to the extent that Congress has appropriated funds for that purpose. The long-standing policy of sharing costs between the DLP and the member libraries is strongly reinforced with the inclusion of electronic formats. The impact of another policy issue has also become more evident. The governmentwide consensus that Title 44, U.S. C., did not obligate agencies to go through the GPO for electronic services resulted in the decentralized production of offline electronic products. Several agencies voluntarily use GPO services and the electronic products may, therefore, get into the DLP. However, other agencies deliberately avoid the GPO and the DLP because they can then reduce the costs necessary to replicate discs and provide user support incurred by the wider distribution of their electronic products through the depository libraries.65 And Still More Problems . . .

In addition to the policy issues, the GPO has encountered other problems and issues while implementing the electronic information program. Depository librarians had technical problems with the pilot projects’ first distribution: Test Disc No. 2. Most of the problems stemmed from inexperience in working with the CD-ROM medium; for example, the necessary software extensions to assign and address the CD-ROM drive were improperly installed on the computers in the libraries. Another problem was that the accompanying software disks were missing some files.66 The Depository Library Council voiced concern about the preservation of master copies of CD-ROMs distributed through the DLP. The mere storage of duplicate CDROM discs was not adequate to ensure that data could be replicated or transferred to other media.67 There was also anxiety in the depository libraries about: (1) the amount of Federal information in electronic format that was not being distributed through the DLP, and (2) the development of a “fugitives” problem, similar to that with paper and microfiche.

280

GOVERNMENT

INFORMATION

QUARTERLY

Vol. P/No. 3/1992

LPS responded that the “GPO is not sitting idly by”and had been involved in developing procedures to incorporate electronic acquisitions into existing DLP routines. Because agencies’ submissions were voluntary rather than mandatory, GPO personnel actively monitored Federal government news publications and attended special interest group meetings in an effort to identify which agencies published electronic products.@ The GPO began to clarify its roles and responsibilities concerning electronic products as experiences accumulated. ITP defined itself as the area within LPS primarily involved with completing and evaluating the pilot projects, developing a framework and strategies for incorporating the challenges of electronic information products into existing routines, and serving as a contact point for depository librarians with their management and service questions surrounding federal electronic information dissemination through the DLP.69 Despite the importance of these responsibilities, ITP has only one staff member. This lack of staff means that ITP cannot become involved with the resolution of electronic information dissemination issues, such as legislation or technical standards.70 Furthermore, Public Printer Robert Houk set the GPO’s direction, in 1991, stating that the agency should concentrate its staff capabilities and expertise in the Printing Procurement Program in order to support the procurement of electronic formats for Federal agencies. In addition, Houk wanted to expand participation by Federal agencies in providing the DLP with improved access to government information through online database services.7’ Experiences Gained The GPO continues to develop guidelines to deal with evolving issues concerning the distribution of electronic products. At the Fall 1990 Depository Library Council meeting, attendees were invited to participate in a brainstorming session to help LPS consider guideline impIi~ations. The session, because of the time of day, became known as the “technology tea.” The ten issues identified (called real lie scenarios) and the GPO’s questions based upon the scenarios were also published in Administrative Notes for wider depository community consideration and response.” Although electronic formats have many advantages already discussed, libraries have confronted numerous problems incorporating these products and services. Costs are substantial. Libraries must invest in the appropriate computer equipment and software. Although it is generally assumed that electronic information reduces the use of paper, machine-readable data are often only usable when printed on paper; another cost. Further, CD-ROMs may save space over bookstacks, but the necessary workstations may occupy dozens of square feet in precious public service areas.73 Librarians have also discovered that users need a great deal of assistance: patrons need to learn how to search CD-ROM databases. For example, most patrons are unable to construct a dBase search necessary to use Census’s Test Disc No. 2 without considerable assistance.74 Training for both users and staff is a major cost and effort. Furthermore, to download information and convert it into a usable manipulative format requires staff expertise along with appropriate hardware and software.75 Unfortunately,

Electronic Government

Information and the Depository Library Program

281

many libraries do not have the time or expertise to develop elaborate training programs for their users.76 Despite the assistance they receive, patrons may not be receiving the information they need. There is an apparent tendency for patrons to define information needs in terms of what is easily available from an electronic source. “If I can get the citation easily from a CD-ROM source, it is relevant to my project; otherwise, skip it.r’77 Their results are then deceptively satisfactory-users seemed more satisfied with the computer even if their actual search is not particularly successful.78 The introduction of CD-ROM reference tools has exacerbated the problem of stress for documents librarians. Trying to help a patron use a supposedly user-friendly tool 79 while watching a line of patrons grow at the public services desk can increase pressure. Further, helping a patron get into a database, select terms, and use boolean search operators often takes longer than helping a patron use a typical print source. The average question on print products may take three to five minutes to answer. The same question on CD-ROM can take fifteen minutes to answer.80 Unlike many of the CD-ROM databases used in general reference searches which include only bibliographic citations, many of the electronic Federal information products contain full text/numerics. As a result, users increasingly ask documents librarians to assist them in the interpretation and analysis of the information retrieved. Another commonly reported source of stress is the nonreference duties that take away from answering substantive questions. Although CD-ROMs have reduced the number of requests for mediated online searches, they have resulted in busier public services desks. With the advent of CD-ROM, clearing paper jams, figuring out why a microcomputer has stopped working, and circulating CD-ROM discs have joined the list of “other duties as assigned” along with photocopier maintenance and keeping statistics. Staff time at the public services desk has not increased commensurately with the increased volume and time demands. The added work is not always welcomed.81 Stress may also be aggravated by the lack of established policies defining how electronic publications fit into depository library operations. It has been recommended that policies define for staff members the level of reference service they are expected to provide to library patrons on electronic products. Once such policies have been established, the staff must be adequately trained to provide that service.82 To help cope with these stresses, GOVDOC-L Discussion List provides a forum for any individual with a BITNET or INTERNET e-mail account to share information and concerns about government document and information issues. It has become an invaluable source for depository librarians to identify, discuss, and resolve common problems encountered.

WORTH

THE EFFORT?

The GPO’s Activities The GPO continues in its efforts to provide electronic products and services through the DLP. On June 3, 1991, the GPO went online with the Federal Depository Library Program Bulletin Board System. The EBB is accessible by all depository libraries via a modem and, in general, contains library program information which later becomes

282

GOVERNMENT

INFORMATION

QUARTERLY

Vol. g/No. 3/l 992

available in print format.83 In late 1990, the GPO began to offer online access to U.S. Supreme Court opinions, Project Hermes.84 A more ambitious project for the GPO was announced on July 11, 1991 by JCP Chairman Charlie Rose (filed as House Resolution 2772). The bill, which is popularly known as WIND0 (Wide Information Network for Data Online), is intended to establish the GPO as a single point of public access to a wide range of Federal electronic databases. The service would offer access to a number of existing online products and gradually offer additional products as they are created and made available. The GPO would either maintain the databases or serve as a gateway into the information systems maintained by other government agencies. Individuals seeking access to the databases would be charged fees that approximate the incremental cost of dissemination. Federal depository libraries would be given free access to the databases.85 Almost immediately upon the filing of House Resolution 2772, J. Timothy Sprehe, formerly at OMB and principal author of its Circular No. A-130, called the proposed project “wacko. “86 “The government simply doesn’t have the tens of millions [of dollars] it would take to open the GPO WIND0.“87 Further, it is not wise to put databases online that the government has no plans to make available, to offer them free of charge through depository libraries while individual users would be assessed fees, and to centralize these responsibilities at the GPO which lacks visible skills or experience in electronic dissemination of government information.88 Advocates of WIND0 argue that what “is truly wacky is spending millions of taxpayer dollars on computer databases and then denying the public access.“*’ WIND0 would allow users to open a single business account at the GPO to obtain online access to dozens of Federal databases currently difficult, if not impossible, to access.g0 The GPO’s Superintendent of Documents, Wayne P. Kelley, stated that ‘I don’t think

it [WIND01 can realistically be expected consolidation of the government’s dissemination activities, would centralize a large majority of it. But that would development period. Estimates of the length and cost of this

to produce complete although I do think it be after an intensive period vary.”

Although the GPO has experience with CD-ROM products, it has no online distribution services. The GPO does not have room on its computers to accommodate agency databases, but would instead either administer sales of direct access from the publisher’s computer or act as a gateway. “Individual arrangements would have to be made with each agency and, for the first years, each new product and service would represent a new challenge.“92 The intent of WIND0 may not be wacky, but the realization of the proposed effort would not be immediate. Notwithstanding these laudable efforts to provide electronic products and improve services, the GPO has begun to isolate itself, especially from its critics within the depository library community. At the April 1991 meeting of the Depository Library Council, Public Printer Robert Houk voiced his displeasure with the focus and activities of the Council, determining it to be ineffective. Furthermore, he was unhappy with the lack of broad representation from the depository library community attending the semiannual open Council meetings. To resolve problems with an ineffective Council, Houk decided the GPO would assume responsibility for setting the agenda from the

Electronic Government

information and the Depository Library Program

283

Council in order to direct the focus of their meetings. To expand interaction opportunities for the depository library community, an annual conference for all depository libraries would be held in Washington, D.C. each spring in conjunction with National Library Week and Legislative Day.93 Since the Council is advisory, the Public Printer may set its direction as deemed necessary. However, the revised meeting structure developed by the GPO eliminates public interaction between the Council and members of the depository library community, an important information sharing mechanism. Observers to the Council meetings cannot participate in public discussions, and the annual conference for depository librarians will not be held simu~t~eously with either of the semiannua1 convenings of the Council. Altering the Council meeting structure to eliminate the depository community’s public participation isolates the Council in its considerations from depository libraries and is an effort by the GPO to reduce public criticism of its programs. Although the annual Federal Depository Conference is intended to increase interaction among the GPO, depository librarians, and other members of the Federal information community, it actually decreases the overall opportunities for the depository library community to voice concerns. An early proposed meeting agenda for the first annual Federal Depository Conference, planned for April 1992, schedules two opportunities for participants to ask questions following presentations, and an unusual last session billed as a “Conference wrap-up----answers to questions posed earlier in the conference.“94 Although there are two sessions for questions, there is not a forum to raise questions not related to the presentations. Furthermore, the old Council meeting structure provided semiannual opportunities for general and specific questions from the depository community on any issue or concern. Interaction and participation would appear to be quite limited at the annual conference-comments, response, and/or discussion by the attendees to the answers provided by the GPO at the final session apparently do not fit into either the GPO’s agenda or intent. The new annual conference format will not necessarily broaden depository representation, nor will it increase interaction and participation among the principles of the depository community. Depository libraries

Doubts exist as to whether or not depository libraries can effectively manage electronic formats. There was extensive lobbying to include electronic products in the DLP. However, throughout the discussion of issues there seems to be an assumption that the depositories receiving these materials would be able to support electronic media; this is in spite of the fact that in many depositories the paper and microfiche documents are posing considerable problems from both a service and storage perspective.” Data from a 1988 survey of fewer than one hundred depositories in substantial academic libraries reflected a lack of sophistication in the area of techno~ogy.96 At the time of the survey, neither the equipment base to support access to electronic products nor the necessary collection development policies in the area of electronic resources generally existed.

284

GOVERNMENT

INFORMATION

QUARTERLY

Vol. g/No. 3/l 992

The resulting picture of technology and expertise in depository collections at the moment is not positive. The survey results do not portray a group of librarians with sufficient resources, support, or staff trained to deal with electronic data. There is a definite need for the depository community and libraries in general to begin to face these serious issues of training and collection management and begin to work on answers and methods of improving operations. If this work is not done, it appears likely that there will be a major crisis in the ability of libraries to deal with electronic data; a crisis that questions the viability of the present structure.97

Because of administrative and technical constraints, not all of the electronic products received by depository libraries are being made available to the user. Direct costs associated with using these electronic products are substantial, such as acquiring the appropriate equipment and software. Additional costs include the demand on physical space in public areas to support the equipment, and the time and expertise for the staff training necessary to adequately provide service. In addition to a lack of collection development policies, realistic expectations of the skill levels for librarians assisting the user together with the users’ expectations of services they may receive from librarians, are usually not thoroughly identified and established. Technical requirements are also substantial-several products are difficult, if not impossible, to use because of the lack of data retrieval software. Stress on both the librarian and user increases, as do tensions, when providing and receiving service. As a result, vast amounts of Federal information lie dormant on shelves, in cabinets, or in desk drawers for lack of administrative support and/or the technical capacities and skills to utilize it. As one example, many depositories are finding it costly and difficult to successfully use the 1990 Bureau of the Census’s TIGER CD-ROM product to create maps. Although the Census Bureau has provided basic data subset retrieval software (EXTRACT), a commercial software product is required to create maps. Several of these commercial products cost in excess of $1,000. Further, substantial computer and printing equipment is also recommended in order to process the userrequested information into a map in a timely manner, and then to produce it in paper format. Depository library Program There is also doubt as to whether or not the DLP is an appropriate structure for the dissemination of electronic products. A restructuring of the DLP to manage electronic products has been often identified as a necessary action. However, the DLP has not been restructured. For example, the introduction of the ITP was welcomedthe unit implemented the pilot projects and assists LPS to cajole Federal agencies to use GPO services for their electronic offerings. However, ITP only has a single staff position and that cannot be taken as a serious restructuring of the DLP. A recent study conducted for the U.S. Bureau of the Census was to identify, in part, the likely trends affecting the effectiveness by which the depository library program provides access to census services and products. The study found that there may be increasing discrepancies between those depository libraries able to exploit the new electronic technologies and to provide improved access to electronic products and services, and those libraries unable to do so. The dilemma that new technologies present

El~tronic

Government ~n~ormation and the ~e~s;to~

f;bra~

Program

285

to the depository program is that the gulf between the technical “haves” and “have riots”” may widen. Because the smaller libraries have fewer staff members and smaller budgets, they may fall farther behind in the use and acquisition of technology.” 1sthe Effort Working?

Has the GPO and the DLP addressed this dilemma? No. Although the GPO has talked about restructuring, has the Public Printer offered a publicly reviewable plan to restructure the depository program? Not one that can be readily found, and if such a plan should be offered, the depository library community would have few, if any, public opportunities to comment based upon the GPO’s increasing reluctance to accommodate criticism. The GPO and the depository library community’s efforts to include electronic Federal information products and services into the DLP and the libraries has been successful. However, implementation of electronic programs has been hampered within the GPO because of the legal constraints of Title 44, U.S.C., an inability to convince Federal agencies of its capabilities to provide services concerning electronic information, and the lack of a serious effort to restructure the DLP to effectively manage this program. The GPO’s requests for revision of Title 44, U.S.C., to require Federal agencies to include their electronic products and services in the DLP and the sales program have failed. JCP Chairman Charlie Rose’s heretofore stalled initiative to legislate GPO WIND0 into existence is a slightly veiled attempt to position the GPO as a centralized access point to these electronic agency services and products in lieu of successfully revising Title 44, U.S.C. Furthermore, the GPO’s efforts to publicly isolate both the Depository Library Council and the critics does not bode well for productive future relations with and within the depository library community. Depository libraries also have problems. The necessary resources to introduce, operate, and expand electronic Federal information products and services to the user are not always available in each depository library. A user with knowledge and skills to utilize automated information technologies and applications software has a distinct advantage in coping with these products than does a computer novice. The axiom holds for librarians. As a result, the service disparity among depository libraries based upon their individual capabilities and resources to successfully implement these products is widening. It is anticipated that the present decentralized depository system will remain well into the next century. Optimistically, the depository libraries will serve both as gateways and as resource centers to a range of products available from the Federal government and private sector providers.” Worth the Effort?

Did the inclusion of electronic products meet the expectations of the depository libraries? Somewhat. The purpose for including electronic products in the DLP was to solve access and availability problems; save library shelf space and reduce processing and filing time over paper and microfiche products; and make information and data easier to use because computers are intended to make everything easier. Electronic formats have increased access and availability; if the electronic means to disseminate

286

GOVERNMENT

INFORMATION

QUARTERLY

Vol. 9!No. 311992

information was not available, many Federal agencies may have ceased or decreased their publications because of costs and time delays to print. However, electronic products have not saved enough shelf space; they have decreased filing time but have increased the time spent assisting the patron; and they often have not been easier for either the patron or librarian to use than the print version. Inclusion of electronic products was intended to increase the value of the depository libraries’ services to the user. This expectation remains unful~lled because users are sometimes overwhelmed by the complexity of searching and the volume of information retrieved; and, while seemingly satisfied by the results, are often deceived because of their belief that computers are infallible. Was, and is, the effort to include and manage electronic products of Federal information in depository libraries worth it? Yes, and it will continue to be. Although costly to accommodate, difficult to use, and stressful to administer, electronic products have increased access to Federal information and data merely by their existence. Yet, we must constantly remind the Federal government, the wider information community, and especially users that the GPO distributes a very small percentage of the electronic information produced. Despite all of the problems, however, if depository libraries had not acquired any products or services, less information would be accessible and available to inform the nation.

NOTES AND REFERENCES 1.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

Congress. Officeof Technology Assessment. Informing the Nation: Federal Information Dissemination (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1988) p. 31 (the report is hereafter cited as informing

in an Electronic Age the Nation). Ibid., p. IS. Ibid., p. 129.

Peter Hernon, “Government Information Safety Nets,” Government ~nformafion darters, 7 (1990): 252. “GODORT’s Principles on Government Information,” Documents to the People, 19 (March 1991): 12. “Responses to Recommendations from Depository Library Council Fall 1988 Meeting,"Administrative Notes, 10: 4 (February 1989): 16. Sandra McAninch, “To the Editor,” Documenfs fo the People, 17 (December 1989): 154; “Summary of Meeting, Depository Library Council to the Public Printer, October 1987,” Administrative Notes, 9: 1 (January 1988): 10. “Depository Library Council Spring 1988 Recommendations,” Administrative Notes, 9: 18 (October 1988): 28. Fred B. Wood, “Title 44 and Federal Information Dissemination--A Technology and Policy Challenge for Congress,” Government Publications Review, 17 (1990): 1-5. Peter Hernon, “Government Information Policy Principles,” Government information Quarterly, 8 (1991): 393, 396. Ibid., pp. 393-394; National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Principles of Public Information (Washington, D.C.: NCLIS, 1990). “GODORT’s Principles on Government Information,” p. 12. Informing fhe Nation, p. 132. “LPS Information Technology Program Update, Depository Library Council, March 1988,” Administrative Notes, 9: 8 (May 1988): 11. Informing ihe Nation, p. 127.

Electronic

16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45.

46.

47. 48. 49, 50. 51. 52. 53. 54.

Government

Information

and the Depository

Library Program

287

“Information Technology Program Update, Depository Library Council, April 1991,” Administrative Notes, 12(May 31, 1991): 17. Admin~trarive Notes, 9: 4 (February “October 1987 Depository Library Council Recommendations~ 1988): 6. “Responses to Recommendations from Depository Library Council Fall 1988 Meeting,” p. 16. Informing ihe Nation, p. 98. “GPO Responses to Recommendations from the Depository Library Council Meeting, March 1989,” Administrative Notes, IO (October 16, 1989): 21. Informing the Nation. p. 144. Ibid., p. 149. McAninch, “To the Editor,” pp. 154-155. “October 1987 Depository Library Council Recommendations,” p. 4. Leroy C. Schwarzkopf, “Forum on Implications of an Electronic Depository Library Program,” Documents to the People, 16 (March 1988): 10. Informing the Nation, p. 144. Ibid., p. 143. Ibid., p. 144. Henry H. Per&t Jr., “Determining the Content and Identifying Suppliers of Public Information in Electronic Form,” Government Publications Review, 17 (1990): 325-332. Informing the Nation, p. 143. “GPO Dissemination of Federal Agency Publications in Electronic Format,” ~~~in~~~~~f~ve Notes, 10 (July 31, 1989): 5. Ibid., pp. 7-9. “October 1987 Depository Library Council Recommendations,” p. 6. “Electronic Corner,” Administrative Notes, 12 (February 22, 1991): 9. “Summary, Fall Meeting, Depository Library Council, October 1990,” Administrative Nores, 12 (February 28, 199 1): 18. Sandy I. Morton, “Federal Information Policy,” Government Information Quarterly, 7 (1990): 70. Lisa Sanchez, “Dissemination of United States Federal Government Information on CD-ROM: An Issues Primer,” Governmenr Pub~~ca~io~ Review, 16 (1989): 142. “Dissemination of Information in Electronic Format to Federal Depository Libraries,” Adminisfrutive Notes, 9: 13 (July 1988): 6. informing rhe Narion. p. 143. “Dissemination of Information in Electronic Format to Federal Depository Libraries,” p. 5. Informing the Nation, p. 144; “Dissemination of Information in Electronic Format to Federal Depository Libraries,” p. 1. Informing the Nation, p. 144. Ibid., p. 149. Ibid., p. 143. “Public Printer to Inaugurate Depository Distribution of Electronic Media,” Administrative Notes, 9: IO (July 1988): 1; “Information Technology Program Update, Depository Library Council, April 1991,” pp. 16; 19. “Summary, Spring Meeting Depository Library Council, April 1990,“Administrative Notes, 11 (August 31, 1990): 6; “Information Technology Program Update: Depository Library Council, April 1991,” p. 18. “Information Technology Program Update: Depository Library Council, April 1991,” p. 19. Ibid., p. 17. “Summary, Spring Meeting Depository Library Council, April 1990,” p. 7; “Information Technology Program Update: Depository Library Council, April 1991,” p. 16-17. “Dissemination of Information in Electronic Format to Federal Depository Libraries,” p. 8. “Efectronic Pilot Projects: An Update,” Admin~~rafi~ Notes, 12 (September 30, I991): 6. “Depository Library Council Summary, October 1988,” Administrative Notes. 10: 3 (February 1989): 9. Ibid., p. 20. “Responses to Recommendation from Depository Library Council Fall 1988 Meeting,” p. 16.

288 55. 56. 57.

GOVERNMENT

INFORMATION

QUARTERLY

Vol. g/No. 3/l 992

“Depository Library Council Summary, October 1988,” p. 10. “Summary, Spring Meeting Depository Library Council, April 1990,” p. 7. Letter to Depository Librarians from Donald E. Fossedal, Superintendent of Documents, Administrurive Notes, 11 (January 15, 1990): 1. 58. “GPO Responses to Recommendations from the Depository Library Council Meeting, March 1989,” p. 22. 59. Robert Schwarzwalder, “The Role of Technical Online Searching in the Age of CD-ROM,” Dutabuse, 14 (August 1991): 106-108; Michael Schuyler, “Systems Librarian and Automation Review,” Computer; in Libruries, 11 (May 1991): 21-25. 60. “Responses to Fall 1989 Council Recommendations,” Administrative Notes, 11 (April 25, 1990): 20. 61. “Responses to Fall 1990 Depository Library Council Recommendations,” Administrative Notes, 12 (April 15, 1991): 17. 62. Anthony J. Zagami, “‘Cost Sharing’ for the Dissemination of Government Information in Electronic Format,” memorandum of GPO General Counsel dated March 25, 1991 to the Public Printer, Administrative Notes, 12 (August 15, 1991): 16-21. 63. ibid. 64. Ibid. 65. “Information Technology Program Update, Depository Library Council, April 1991,” pp. 21-22. 66. “Depository Library Council Summa~, October 1988,” p. 10. 67. “Responses to Spring 1990 Recommendations of the Depository Library Council,” Administrative Notes, 11 (October 31, 1990): 16. 68. “Information Technology Program Update, Depository Library Council, April 1991,” pp. 20-Z. 69. ibid., p. 15. 70. Ibid. 71. “Technology and Its Future Effect on the Government Printing Office,” Administrarive Notes, 12 (July 31, 1991): 4. 72. “Electronics Acquisitions and Dissemination Issues Survey,” Administrative Notes, 11 (December 30, 1990): 1. GPO’s responses to the comments provided by the depository library community concerning the ten issues appear in “‘Technology Tea’ Survey Results,” Administrative Notes, 12 (June 30, 1991): 10-19. Kinney and Ray Jones, “Microcomputers, Government I~ormation, and Libraries,” 73. Thomas Government Publications Review, 15 (1988): 152-153; Sanchez, “Dissemination of United States Federal Government Information.. .,npp. 135-137. 74. Steven W. Staninger, “Using the U.S. Bureau of the Census CD-ROM Test Disc 2: A Note,” Government Publications Review, 23 (1991): 173. Government Information, and Libraries,” pp. 152-153. 75. Kinney and Jones, “Microcomputers, Laserdisk 16. Cathy Seitz Whitaker, “Pile-Up at the Reference Desk: Teaching Users to Use CD-ROMs,” Professional, 3 (March 1990): 31. Stress,” Library Journal, 116 (April 15, 1991): 63-64. 77. Charles A. Bunge, “CD-ROM 18. Whitaker, “Pile-Up at the Reference Desk . . .,” p. 31. Stress,” p. 63. 79. Bunge, “CD-ROM 80. Whitaker, “Pile-Up at the Reference Desk . . .,” p. 32; Bunge, “CD-ROM Stress,” p. 63. Stress,” p. 63. 81. Whitaker, “Pile-Up at the Reference Desk . .,” p. 32; Bunge, “CD-ROM Notes, 12 (July 31, 1991): Software & Policy on Assistance to the User,” Administrative 82. “CD-ROM 18-19; Administrative Notes, 12 (August 15, 1991): 10-12; Administrative Notes, 12 (August 31, 1991): 5-6. Tea’ Survey Results,” p. 3. 83. “‘Technology before the American Library Association Midwinter Meeting, Robert W. Houk, Public 84. “Remarks Printer of the United States,” Administrative Nores, 12 (February 22, 1991): 3. Network for Data Online Act of 1991” (H.R. 2772), press release dated July 8.5. “GPO Wide Information 11, 1991 from Joint Committee on Printing Chairman Charlie Rose. Stirs Debate on Database,” Federal Computer Week, July 29, 86. J. Timothy Sprehe, “Open WIND0 1991, p. 16. 87. Ibid., p. 18. 88. Ibid., pp. 16, 18.

Electronic Government Information and the Depository Library Program

289

89. James P. Love, “GPO’s WIND0 Brings Breath of Fresh Air,” Federul Computer Week, August 12, 1991, pp. 17,30. 90. Ibid., p. 17. 91. Wayne P. Kelley, “Federal Information Dissemination Policy and the GPO,” Administrative Notes, 12 (Novem~r 15, 1991): 8. 92. Ibid. 93. “Remarks before the Depository Library Advisory Council, Spring 1991 Meeting, Robert W. Houk, Public Printer of the United States,” Admjnisrrative Notes, 12 (May 15, 1991): 9. 94. “‘Technology Tea’ Survey Results,” pp. l-3. 95. Diane H. Smith, “Depository Libraries in the 1990s: Whither, or Wither Depositories?,” Government Pu~~icur~o~Review, 17 f 1990):30 l-302. 96. Ibid., p. 307. 97. Ibid., pp. 308,310,312. 98. Peter Hernon and Charles R. McClure, “Electronic Census Products and the Depository Library Program: Future Issues and Trends,” Government Information Quarreriy, 8 (1991): 59-60, 74. 99. Ibid., pp. 74-75.