- Email: [email protected]
Government printing office's depository library program
GOVERNMENT
94
7.
Cumulative
monthly
8.
A 50 lb reader
9.
Support
documentation
10.
Optional
digital counter
11.
Coverage begins 1976
INFORMATION
updates
given
QUARTERLY
Vol. ~/NO. l/1986
7.
Cumulative
monthly
updates
8.
A 32 lb reader resembling Magazine Index
9.
Support
documentation
10.
Cumbersome location
11.
Coverage begins 1976
given
counter to identify
NOTES AND REFERENCES 1.
Charles
R. McClure and Peter Hernon, Improving the Quality of Reference Service for Government (Chicago, IL: American Library Association, 1983). Judy E. Myers, “The Government Printing Office Cataloging Records: Opportunities and Problems,” Publications
2.
Government 3.
4. 5.
Information
Quarterly,
2 (1985): 27-56.
Peter Hernon and Charles R. McClure, Public Access to Government Information: Issues. Trends, and Strategies (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Pub. Corp., 1984). Peter Hernon, Use of Government Publications by Social Scientists (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Pub. Corp., 1979). According to Brodart’s sales representative, “the fine adjustment can be thrown off during shipment,” and “the instruction manual explains the resetting procedure.”
Government Printing Office’s Depository Library Program, Report to the Chairman, Joint Committee on Printing by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO/AFMD-85-19) Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office, 1984,23 pages. Depository Librarians’ Views on GPO’s Administration of the Depository Library Program, Report to the Chairman, Joint Committee on Printing by the U.S. General Accounting Office. (GAO/AFMD-84-50) Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office, 1984, [ 1],40 pages. GA l.l3:AFMD-84-50. Reviewed by Sharon Anderson Sharon Anderson Central University
is Head, Government Documents, Maps, Microforms Department, Library, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093.
These are companion reports dealing with the condition of the depository library program during the period March through November 1983. Depository Librarians’ Views was the first of the reports to appear. It consists of a summary of responses to a questionnaire sent to all depositories during the summer of 1983. Almost half the report
R?3&?WS
95
is devoted to tallying the responses to each of the 50 specific items on the survey and the other half provides a minimal analysis and discussion for most of these items, including percentages for the responses and, in a few instances, breakdowns by size of library. It might be considered to be an appendix or exhibit document for the second report. GPO’s Depository Library Program focuses on the Government Printing Gffice operations and contains discussion and recommendations. Unlike many documents from the GAO, most of the recommendations are buried within the text, so one has to pretty much read through the entire report in order to discover them. Following the transmittal document which contains a short summary of findings, the main body of the report addresses four main topics: identifying publications for inclusion, classifying publications, cataloging concerns, and distribu~on issues. It also acknowledges plans for a “lighted bin” system (which has subsequently been put into operation) and for automated systems but declines to evatuate them. Final portions of the report include a two-page description of objectives, scope, and methodology, followed by a letter from Senator Charles Mathias as Chairman of the Joint Committee on Printing requesting the audit, and a letter from William Barrett, who was Acting Public Printer at the time, transmitting written responses to the report on behalf of GPO. The written comments are not included because, according to Frederick Wolf, the director of the audit, they were quite voluminous. Introductory and concluding remarks, as well as those in Mr. Barrett’s letter, indicate that strong objections on the part of GPO led to modifications of the tone and some of the content of the report, One can only speculate as to how it might have read before. Certainty the present version has none of the stuff of sensation the media typi~l~y enjoy with the more newsworthy GAO audits. Clearly, the depository library program is not of the same scale or character as, say, Department of Defense procurement. The report contains few, if any, surprises for experienced depository Iibrary observers although it provides some background details on various aspects of the operations which could prove new or interesting, particularly to someone who has not visited or studied on the scene at GPO. It is difficult to imagine how the report might read, or whether it would even be comprehensible, to someone who did not already have some familiarity with the program. (1 wouldn’t recommend it as an introductory text.) It probably has “‘something for everyone” in terms of striking a chord for one need or another-and it is likely to have shortcomings for everyone, as well. Nearly every reader may find a problem of some kind-either with one recommendation or another or with some aspect that is not addressed or not addressed ~~sfactoriIy= For example, the proposal to eliminate personal name authority work, which had begun to receive extensive discussion in certain circles around the time ofthe study, subsequently failed to gain much support in wider library circles. On the other hand, most government publications librarians could not fail to read with approval (and a certain amount of sympathy) the discussion of efforts needed to encourage federal agencies to provide their publications for the depository program. Although some of the background data provided can be characterized as “confirming one’s worst fears” (such as that dealing with the time lag for distribution of documents in microfiche), most of us would still be quick to acknowledge that, despite needs for improvement, the accomplishments of the program are substantiai. Exciting it is not, but the report is sure& worth reading by anyone associated with the GPO depository library program. What is almost as interesting as the text itself is the
96
GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION
QUARTERLY
Vol. ~/NO. l/1986
fact that the study was even carried out-and the speculation as to whether any changes will result, particularly outside the GPO where increased cooperation or support might be sought. One final observation, ironically, concerns the distribution. The first report, bearing a cover date of April 1984, was shipped to depositories in microfiche in June 1984. The second one, dated December 17, 1984, had not been received as a depository item by this library or another local depository by the time of this writing in late April. Libraries wanting a paper copy may presumably receive one free of charge while the supply lasts by requesting it from the General Accounting Office.
The Government/Press Connection: Press Officers and Their Offices By Stephen Hess Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1984, 175 pages, $8.95 (paper), (cloth) ISBN O-8157-3592-2 (paper). ISBN o-8157-35960 (cloth). LC 84-17014.
$22.95
Reviewed by LeRoy C. Schwarzkopf LeRoy C. Schwarzkopf is the former Head of the Documents/Map Room at the McKeldin Library, University of Maryland. His address is: P.O. Box 232, Greenbelt, MD 20770.
This is a valuable study about public access to executive branch government information, or rather how most of the current information about the operations of the executive branch of the federal government is made available to the largest segment of the general public. Government publications of the executive branch, many of which are available to the general public through the depository library system are a significant source of government information, but these are read by a small number of the population, and are generally not current. The major source of government information for the general public is the nation’s print and broadcasting media. Most of this information is obtained by reporters through the intervention of government press offices. The author, a senior fellow in the Brookings Institution’s Governmental Studies program, spent a year (1981-1982) as an observer for periods of l-3 months in the press offices of five executive agencies: the “big three” (White House, Department of State, and Department of Defense), Department of Transportation, and Food and Drug Administration. The “big three” have the largest number of reporters assigned, and therefore the largest number of press officers and facilities to serve them. Generally, the press covers the White House, State Department, and the Pentagon on a 4-3-l ratio, indicating their relative importance, and the amount of news published about each. The Department of Transportation and Food and Drug Administration were chosen as representative example of executive agencies on the outer ring of media attention and coverage. Hess notes that about the only restrictions on his observations of office activity was exclusion from meetings dealing with agency personnel evaluations.
94
7.
Cumulative
monthly
8.
A 50 lb reader
9.
Support
documentation
10.
Optional
digital counter
11.
Coverage begins 1976
INFORMATION
updates
given
QUARTERLY
Vol. ~/NO. l/1986
7.
Cumulative
monthly
updates
8.
A 32 lb reader resembling Magazine Index
9.
Support
documentation
10.
Cumbersome location
11.
Coverage begins 1976
given
counter to identify
NOTES AND REFERENCES 1.
Charles
R. McClure and Peter Hernon, Improving the Quality of Reference Service for Government (Chicago, IL: American Library Association, 1983). Judy E. Myers, “The Government Printing Office Cataloging Records: Opportunities and Problems,” Publications
2.
Government 3.
4. 5.
Information
Quarterly,
2 (1985): 27-56.
Peter Hernon and Charles R. McClure, Public Access to Government Information: Issues. Trends, and Strategies (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Pub. Corp., 1984). Peter Hernon, Use of Government Publications by Social Scientists (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Pub. Corp., 1979). According to Brodart’s sales representative, “the fine adjustment can be thrown off during shipment,” and “the instruction manual explains the resetting procedure.”
Government Printing Office’s Depository Library Program, Report to the Chairman, Joint Committee on Printing by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO/AFMD-85-19) Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office, 1984,23 pages. Depository Librarians’ Views on GPO’s Administration of the Depository Library Program, Report to the Chairman, Joint Committee on Printing by the U.S. General Accounting Office. (GAO/AFMD-84-50) Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office, 1984, [ 1],40 pages. GA l.l3:AFMD-84-50. Reviewed by Sharon Anderson Sharon Anderson Central University
is Head, Government Documents, Maps, Microforms Department, Library, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093.
These are companion reports dealing with the condition of the depository library program during the period March through November 1983. Depository Librarians’ Views was the first of the reports to appear. It consists of a summary of responses to a questionnaire sent to all depositories during the summer of 1983. Almost half the report
R?3&?WS
95
is devoted to tallying the responses to each of the 50 specific items on the survey and the other half provides a minimal analysis and discussion for most of these items, including percentages for the responses and, in a few instances, breakdowns by size of library. It might be considered to be an appendix or exhibit document for the second report. GPO’s Depository Library Program focuses on the Government Printing Gffice operations and contains discussion and recommendations. Unlike many documents from the GAO, most of the recommendations are buried within the text, so one has to pretty much read through the entire report in order to discover them. Following the transmittal document which contains a short summary of findings, the main body of the report addresses four main topics: identifying publications for inclusion, classifying publications, cataloging concerns, and distribu~on issues. It also acknowledges plans for a “lighted bin” system (which has subsequently been put into operation) and for automated systems but declines to evatuate them. Final portions of the report include a two-page description of objectives, scope, and methodology, followed by a letter from Senator Charles Mathias as Chairman of the Joint Committee on Printing requesting the audit, and a letter from William Barrett, who was Acting Public Printer at the time, transmitting written responses to the report on behalf of GPO. The written comments are not included because, according to Frederick Wolf, the director of the audit, they were quite voluminous. Introductory and concluding remarks, as well as those in Mr. Barrett’s letter, indicate that strong objections on the part of GPO led to modifications of the tone and some of the content of the report, One can only speculate as to how it might have read before. Certainty the present version has none of the stuff of sensation the media typi~l~y enjoy with the more newsworthy GAO audits. Clearly, the depository library program is not of the same scale or character as, say, Department of Defense procurement. The report contains few, if any, surprises for experienced depository Iibrary observers although it provides some background details on various aspects of the operations which could prove new or interesting, particularly to someone who has not visited or studied on the scene at GPO. It is difficult to imagine how the report might read, or whether it would even be comprehensible, to someone who did not already have some familiarity with the program. (1 wouldn’t recommend it as an introductory text.) It probably has “‘something for everyone” in terms of striking a chord for one need or another-and it is likely to have shortcomings for everyone, as well. Nearly every reader may find a problem of some kind-either with one recommendation or another or with some aspect that is not addressed or not addressed ~~sfactoriIy= For example, the proposal to eliminate personal name authority work, which had begun to receive extensive discussion in certain circles around the time ofthe study, subsequently failed to gain much support in wider library circles. On the other hand, most government publications librarians could not fail to read with approval (and a certain amount of sympathy) the discussion of efforts needed to encourage federal agencies to provide their publications for the depository program. Although some of the background data provided can be characterized as “confirming one’s worst fears” (such as that dealing with the time lag for distribution of documents in microfiche), most of us would still be quick to acknowledge that, despite needs for improvement, the accomplishments of the program are substantiai. Exciting it is not, but the report is sure& worth reading by anyone associated with the GPO depository library program. What is almost as interesting as the text itself is the
96
GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION
QUARTERLY
Vol. ~/NO. l/1986
fact that the study was even carried out-and the speculation as to whether any changes will result, particularly outside the GPO where increased cooperation or support might be sought. One final observation, ironically, concerns the distribution. The first report, bearing a cover date of April 1984, was shipped to depositories in microfiche in June 1984. The second one, dated December 17, 1984, had not been received as a depository item by this library or another local depository by the time of this writing in late April. Libraries wanting a paper copy may presumably receive one free of charge while the supply lasts by requesting it from the General Accounting Office.
The Government/Press Connection: Press Officers and Their Offices By Stephen Hess Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1984, 175 pages, $8.95 (paper), (cloth) ISBN O-8157-3592-2 (paper). ISBN o-8157-35960 (cloth). LC 84-17014.
$22.95
Reviewed by LeRoy C. Schwarzkopf LeRoy C. Schwarzkopf is the former Head of the Documents/Map Room at the McKeldin Library, University of Maryland. His address is: P.O. Box 232, Greenbelt, MD 20770.
This is a valuable study about public access to executive branch government information, or rather how most of the current information about the operations of the executive branch of the federal government is made available to the largest segment of the general public. Government publications of the executive branch, many of which are available to the general public through the depository library system are a significant source of government information, but these are read by a small number of the population, and are generally not current. The major source of government information for the general public is the nation’s print and broadcasting media. Most of this information is obtained by reporters through the intervention of government press offices. The author, a senior fellow in the Brookings Institution’s Governmental Studies program, spent a year (1981-1982) as an observer for periods of l-3 months in the press offices of five executive agencies: the “big three” (White House, Department of State, and Department of Defense), Department of Transportation, and Food and Drug Administration. The “big three” have the largest number of reporters assigned, and therefore the largest number of press officers and facilities to serve them. Generally, the press covers the White House, State Department, and the Pentagon on a 4-3-l ratio, indicating their relative importance, and the amount of news published about each. The Department of Transportation and Food and Drug Administration were chosen as representative example of executive agencies on the outer ring of media attention and coverage. Hess notes that about the only restrictions on his observations of office activity was exclusion from meetings dealing with agency personnel evaluations.