Government publishing: Past to present

Government Publishing:Past to Present

Peter Hernon* Harold 6. Relyea*

This article provides an overview of government publishing for different levels of government, although most attention focuses on the U.S. national government. The article documents the shift from paper to electronic publication, for some but not all governments, and discusses the implications of that shift.

While the antecedents of printing may be found in the I 1th-century invention of movable type in China and the lrtth-century creation of xylography in Europe, the 15th~ntu~ development of metallographic printing and typography coincided with the rise of the modem state. Government publishing was the result of the subsequent use of this technology by authoritative state entities of both national and subnational character. The concept of government publishing has at least three significant components. It occurs within a context of governance; that is, it is conducted by some type-democratic, authoritarian, or totalitarian-of governmental system. Furthermore, it involves publishing, which, at a ~~rnurn, is the tuitional pr~uction of isolation products through printing-the application of ink to paper-or, more recently, the use of electronic formats. There is also another dimension to publishing: dissemination of the information product. While the word “publish” derives from a Latin root meaning “all of the people,” the extent to which government publications are disseminated or otherwise readily accessible to the populace of a nation is primarily conditioned by the citizenry’s form of government. However, even democracies may, for reasons of state security, ~~umvention of the law, or personal privacy, among others, restrict the public availability of some government publications. Finally, there is the matter of the integrity of publication content-in brief, whether it is accurate or erroneous, reliable or propaganda. l

D&et &i#~~B~PK&?T%x to: Peter&rmn, Professor. Simtttons CoIlege’sGraduate S&o1 of LZmty and Idotmation Science, 300 7%~Fenway, Boston, Massachusetts 02115;or Harold C. Relyea, S’cialisst in Ametican National Govemtnent. Comgmsionai Rematch Setvice~Library of Congress, Wb.shingto~ B.C. 20>40.

Government Information Quarterly, Volume 12, Number 3, pages 309-330. ISSN: 0740424x.

310

GOVERNMENT

INFORMATION

QUARTERLY

Vol. 1~/NO. 3/l 995

What is reviewed here is the government publis~ng experience of the United States, concentrating primarily on the Federal government as a developed case study. Comparative references are made, however, to state and local experiences and certain foreign government developments as well. The purpose is to show some si~~ties and differences across levels of government. Clearly, the electronic information age and the emerging national information infrastructure reflect a changing environment and information dissemination role for government. TUITIONAL

PUBLI~TION

The Constitutional Context The Constitution of the United States mandates a limited government, one which is to be accountable to the people and to itself as well. From the outset in 1789, there was an expectation that Federal government leaders would keep the citizenry informed of developments, or at least maintain a record of their activities. In this regard, the Constitution specifies that each house of Congress “shall keep a Journal of its Procedures, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy” (Article I, Section 5, clause 3). Concerning the duties of electors, the Twelfth Amendment prescribes “they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify” (Article II, Section I, clause 3). Concerning the subnation~ level of government, the Constitution states: “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each state to the Public Acts, Records, and Judicial Proceedings of every other State” (Article IV, Section 1, clause 1). Furthermore, with its system of checks and balances, the Co~titution anticipated that each branch-legislative, executive, and judicial-would be knowledgeable of the activities and interests of the other two. In this regard, the Constitution specifically provides that, when the President vetoes a bill, “he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal and proceed to reconsider it" (Article I, Section 7, clause 2). Concerning interbranch accountability, provision is made for the President to “require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices” (Article II, Section 2, clause 1). Finally, the Constitution indicates that the President “shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient” (Article 2, Section 3). In many regards, these constitutional references to information matters indicate some fundament~ expectations regarding government a~ountab~ty and commu~cation, the exercise of certain popular rights regarding government information, and subsequent legislation detailing and refining a few particular information policies. Historically, experience and practice, together with constitutions considerations, have guided the legislative process.

311

Government Publishing: Past to Present

The Pu~~at~n

Fou~a~

During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Wilson of Pennsylvania stressed the importance of official printing and publication by the new government. Addressing a proposal to allow each congressional chamber a discretion as to the parts of its journal that would be published, he told the delegates: “The people have the right to know what their Agents are doing or have done, and it should not be in the option of the Legislature to conceal their proceedings.“’ The following‘year, James Madison and George Mason raised a similar consideration during the Virginia Convention on the proposed Constitution when speaking about the irnpo~~~ of publis~ng all receipts and expenditures of public money under the new Federal government. In deference to views such as these, the Congress established by the Constitution quickly provided for the printing and public ~~t~bution of both the laws and treaties, the preservation of papers of state, and the maintenance of official files in the new departments. The printing and distribution of both the Senate and House journals were authorized in 1813. Congress arranged for a contemporary summary of each chamber’s floor proceedings to be published in the Register of Debates, beginning in 1824. It then switched, in 1833, to the weekly Congressional Globe, which sought to chronicle every step in the legislative proceedings of the two houses. A daily publication schedule was established for the Globe in 1865. Subsequently, the Congressional Record succeeded the Globe in March 1873 as the official congressional gazette. It was produced by the new Federal printing agency created by Congress. Provision was initially made, in 1846, for the routine printing of all congressional reports, special documents, and bills. While these responsib~ti~ were met for many years through the use of contract printers, such arrangements proved to be subject to considerable political abuse. Consequently, in 1860, Congress established the Government Punting Office (GPO) to produce all of its literature (including, eventually, the Congressional Record) and to serve, as well, the printing needs of the Executive Branch. Additional aspects of government-wide printing and publication policy were set with the Printing Act of 1895, which is the source of much of the basic policy still found in the printing chapters of Title 44 of the United States Code (USC). Congress mandated the publication of the statutes and a variety of Legislative Branch literature (including Executive Branch materials which were initially produced as Senate or House documents), authorized newspaper reprinting of the laws and treaties, and promoted circulating printed documents through official sources. Among other developments, Congress, with the Printing Act of 1895, established the Superintendent of Documents within the GPO, who, among other duties, was given responsibility for managing the sale of public documents and preparing the Monthly Catalog of United States Government Publications, a record of government publications. Until 1904, the sale stock available to the Superintendent derived entirely from such materials as were provided for this purpose by the departments and agencies or were returned from depository libraries. The situation was altered when the Superintendent was granted authority in 1904 to reprint any departmental publication, with the consent of the eminent Secretary, for public sale, Congress legislated comparable discretion to reproduce its documents in 1922.

312

GOVERNMENT

INFORMATION

QUARTERLY

Vol. 1~/NO. 3/l 995

Among the states, several-for example, California, Delaware, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio-still maintain their own centralized printing facilities. However, the trend, as the situation in New York indicates, is toward scaling down these plants, both for reasons of economy and increased use of desktop publishing. Indeed, most of the states seem to be contracting out their printing and, to varying extent, utilizing desktop printing production technology. Similar trends prevail in foreign democracies or near democracies. Her Majesty’s Stationery office in Great Britain and Supply and Services Canada are procurers of printing through contracts with the private sector, although desktop pub~shing is operative in the ministries. In brief, the choice of printing technology depends upon cost-benefit-quality considerations. By contrast, the new democratic regimes in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union republics have only recently become acquainted with desktop printing production and must utilize the often vast, government-owned, centralized printing facilities amassed by predecessor regimes. The Administrative State Shortly after the dawn of the 20th century, the Federal government entered a new phase with the rise of the administrative state. Among the forces contributing to this development was the Progressive Movement, which sought greater government intervention into and regulation of various sectors of American society and economic intercourse. In 1913, an autonomous Department of Labor was established, along with the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Trade Commission was created the following year. With U.S. entry into World War I, regulatory activities further expanded and the number of administrative agencies increased. With the postwar era, government expansion moment~ly slowed, but resumed with the onset of the Great Depression and the arrival of the New Deal administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933. As Federal regulatory powers and administrative entities dramatically grew during this period, there was a concomitant increase in both the number and variety of controlling directives, regulations, and requirements. While one contemporary observer, John A. Fairlie of the Army General Staff, characterized the operative situation in 1920 as one of “confusion,” another one, Harvard Law School professor Erwin N. Griswold, described the deteriorating conditions in 1934 as “chaos.” During the early days of the New Deal, administrative law pronouncements were in such disarray that, on one occasion, Federal government attorneys atguing a lawsuit before the Supreme Court were embarrassed to find their case was based upon a nonexistent regulation, and on another, to discover they were pursuing litigation based upon a revoked executive order. To address the ~ountab~ity problem, Congress established an Executive Branch gazette. Such a publication had been temporarily produced during the time of U.S. involvement in World War I. Printed as a tabloid newspaper, the offi& BuZZerin contained presidential orders and proclamations along with department and agency directives, as well as various news items pertaining to the European hostilities. Issued each workday, it reached a peak cessation of 118,000 copies in August of 1918. The new gazette, statutorily authorized in July 1935, was named the Federal Register. Produced in a magazine format, it contains a variety of presidential directives and agency regulations, and eventually came to be published each workday. In 1937,

Government

Publishing: Past to Present

313

Congress inaugurated the Code ofFederal Regulations, a useful supplement to the Register. This cumulation of the instruments and authorities appearing in the gazette contains almost all operative ageney regulations, and is updated anrmally. It is organized in 50 titles paralleling those of the USC, with Title 3 containing presidential instruments. Later, the general statutory authority underlying the Fe&ral Register was relied upon for the creation of other series of publications-the annual United States Government Manual, a catalog of Federal organizations which has been available for public purchase since 1939, the public Papers of the Presidents, an official documents series which was launched in 1960 and covers the administrations of President Herbert Hoover, President Harry S. Truman, and Truman’s successors; and the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, a presidential gazette which was begun in the summer of 1965. Most state governments parallel the Federal government by publishing at least a periodic state manual, which often contains many details concerning the legislature (imitating the Congressional Directory somewhat), and the official papers of their governors (and sometimes those of other officials). Many of them also produce some version of an executive gazette, as do many metropolitan local governments. Oftentimes, subnational governments use the newspapers as a supplement to or an alternative for a gazette. Publications comparable to the Federal Register may be found in foreign democracies or near democracies, depending upon the extent to which a nation’s government vigorously engages in administrative law practices, such as regulating social and economic affairs and propounding new rules regarding these matters. In some ju~sdictions, for reasons of economy, geographic scale, or government form, the parliamentary gazette may also function as an executive gazette by publishing ministry pronouncements and legal instruments. Finally, newspapers are usually the publication alternative when no executive gazette is available.

The JudicialSetting While a significant portion of Legislative and Executive Branch literature is printed by the GPO, with much of it made available to the public through GPO sales and depository library distribution, Judicial Branch materials are published in a somewhat different manner. During the early years of the Federal government, the Judicial Branch had very little to publish. Oral argument in the trial and appellate courts was the general practice. Attorneys were un~ustom~ to preparing written briefs; judges, furthermore, did not author many decisions or opinions. Final determinations in a lawsuit were rendered through entry upon the log or journal of the clerk of the court, a brief order, or an occasional handwritten note. With the passage of time, however, the quantity and importance of Federal judgments began to grow, as did interest in these decisions. A commercial response resulted: during the 19th century, over 200 separate case reporters, most covering only a single court, published decisions from various Federal courts, other than the Supreme Court. Not only was this reporting unsystematic, but also the private reporters sometimes presented varying texts of the same decision.

314

GOVERNMENT

INFOR~TION

QUARTERLY

Vol. 12iNo. 3/1995

Private enterprise retained its hold, nonethel~, and efforts were made to improve the quality of reporting. West Publishing Company became a leader in the field. Using the collected products of the various early reporters as well as materials gathered under its own auspices, the firm, between 1894 and 1897, produced Federal Ca.ses,a 30-volume compilation of all available lower Federal court case law to 1882. However, West had earlier begun publishing the Federal Reporter series. Begun in 1880, it systematically reproduced the written decisions rendered by judges of the Federal trial and lower appellate courts. Later, in 1932, West inaugurated the Federal S~pp~e~e~t series, which contains only trial court decisions. Federal RuIes Be&~ons, launched by West in 1940, selectively reports Federal court decisions concerning pro~dur~ matters. Subsequently, over the past 50 years, a num~r of specified topical reporters have been commercially produced. Nonetheless, single copies of lower Federal court decisions are publicly available from the issuing court in typescript or, sometimes, printed versions called slip opinions. The pubhcation of Supreme Court decisions has followed a somewhat different course. The task was begun as a private venture, in 1790, by Alexander J. Dallas, a noted Pennsylvania attorney. When the Court relocated from the temporary capital in Philadelphia to the Federal district (Washington, DC.) in 1800, William Cranch, then chief justice of the circuit court of the district, took over from Dallas, Subsequently, in March 1817, Congress authorized the Court to appoint and compensate a reporter to handle the publication of its decisions. While this employee could secure the services of a private contract printer to produce each ~omp~ation, a statuto~ly specified number of copies was to be suppled, “without any expense to the United States,” to certain designated Federal officials. This so-called nominative reporter system was discontinued with the decisions of the 1874 term. Almost 50 years elapsed, however, before contemporary practice was inaugurated in 1922. The Supreme Court reporter was divested of all interest in the publication of the reports; the GPO was given responsibility for obtaining the Court’s printing, including the production of the United States Reports, as the published series is entitled; and the Superintendent of Documents was authorized to sell copies of the series to the public. However, commercial ~ubl~he~ did not abandon the area, and have continued to produce their own reportorial series of Court decisions with research features as well as particular specialized ~o~ections of Court opinions. State court decisions are selectively pub~sh~, largely on the basis of pre~enti~ and interpretive value. Consequently, appellate court decisions, particularly where written interpretations are rendered, are primarily published under state auspices. Trial court records and other unpub~shed court decisions may be consulted at the court house of jurisdiction. Commercial publishers may produce specialized compilations of state court decisions. In foreign democracies and near democracies, while the volume of litigation is generally less than that in the United States and a more unitary system of criminal, civil, and ~~~trative courts often can be found, the precedential value of judicial decisions is the primary consideration in government publication of such material. However, compared with U.S. practice, it generally appears that both a smaller quantity and narrower range of court decisions are publish~.

Government Pu~~;s~in~:

315

fast to Present

Public Avail~li~

(U.S. G~~rn~nt)

Access provides a means for the public to be informed and to acquire the information and knowledge desired. Access includes six aspects: identification (improved retrieval systems), av~ability (better delivery systems), price (time, effort, and financial), cost to the provider, understanding (the necessary expertise to comprehend a source or explanation and education to overcome the lack of comprehension), and acceptability. Agencies frame some of the considerations concerning access in terms of dissemination or distribution. Dissemination channels for government publications include the GPO, the National Technical Isolation Service (NTIS), other cle~n~ouses, the Consumer Isolation Center, the agencies, the congressional committees, and the private sector. None of these charmels provide access to all government pub~~ations. Those in need of government publications may have to negotiate assorted channels and publication mediums. The Federal government produces at least 22 types of publications! Some types might appear as paper or microform publications, whereas others comprise audiovisual, CDROM, and online publications, or might be available through diskette or magnetic tape. For example, depending on the agency, press releases might appear as part of newsletters or be released as separate publications. Other agencies might make press releases available through the Internet, a electronic network. This section hi~~ghts the major disse~nation channels of the Federal govemment. Each serves a particular purpose and, to some extent, may duplicate the services of another channel. Undoubt~ly, a number of these channels are not well known and cater to specific audiences. The section also briefly ~gh~ghts public access to publications of other countries. Government Printing Ofice. Printing for the Federal government totals $1 billion per year. The GPO, a Legislative Branch agency, provides some of the printing and dissemination services for government agencies; the agencies are publishers because they decide what they want to have printed and distribute or disseminate. Basically, the GPO must approve all privately contracted government printing orders; however, the agency contracts about 75 percent of its printing to private printers. The Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency are exempt from the requirement. The Su~~ntendent of Documents, who serves the Public Printer or head of the GPO, has both a general and a special sales program. For the former, the Superintendent monitors what the GPO prints and selects appro~mately g-10 percent for sale. The program is self-supporting, and pricing is based on the “cost as determined by the Public Printer plus 50 percent” (44 USC 1708); revenues, therefore, are to exceed costs. The special program is subsidized, and the Public Printer does not control prices; either external constraints or provisions specified in the United States Code dictate pricing policy, e.g., for the Congressional Record and the Federal Register. The GPO also has a consigned agent sales program. Consigned agents in other government agencies sell certain publications on behalf of the GPO. Pricing of pubiications through consigned agents may have some variability; their price may be higher than the GPO itself would charge.

316

GOVERNMENT

INFORMATION

QUARTERLY

Vol. 1~/NO. 311995

As more agencies produce electronic information and engage in desktop publishing, including the distribution of floppy disks, there is less need for them to rely on the printing services of the GPO. As well, the Senate now has its own printing facilities. Clearly, the GPO is not the central printing facility it once was. Furthermore, with the emergence of the national information infrastructure, the GPO assumes a secondary role, one in competition with other providers of electronic services. Indeed, the future of the GPO is undergoing reconsideration. National Technical Information Service. The NTIS, within the Department of Commerce, was first established as a Publication Board in 1945 to collect, review, and preserve World War II scientific and technical documentation and determine how much of it could be released to the public. Over time, the agency’s mission expanded. Now, the NTIS operates as a clearinghouse to collect and distribute scientific, technical, and engineering information. It disseminates government (U.S. and other) and nongove~ment source material (paper copies, microfiche, tloppy diskettes, CD-ROMs, and machine-readable files) to industry, government, and the general public. Like the GPO, it serves as a minor publisher, providing its own publications. Some of these materials might be copyrighted; occasionally the NTIS, the National Library of Medicine, other agencies, and agency contractors copyright their publications. Most government pub~cations, however, are not copouts. More than any other agency, including the GPO, the NTIS, by statute, is required to be self-sustaining in its services. As agencies have decreased the amount of their paper publication, the NTIS has had to offset this decline in titles received and revenue with other information products and services, primarily the provision of electronic media. Regardless, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense remain the largest providers of i~ormation resources to the NTIS. Still, like the GPO, the NTIS faces the challenge of finding ways to offset the declining needs of agencies to rely on traditional services for the provision of paper and microfiche. Recognizing this, the NTIS offers other services, such as FedWorld, a gateway for providing access to a wide range of agency electronic i~o~a~on sources. Other Clearinghouses. This category, for example, includes the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) and the Department of Health and Human Services, which operates assorted clearinghouses. There might be some duplication between the resources of these clearinghouses, the GPO sales program, and the NTIS. Moreover, there might be differences in prices. Consumer Information Center. This service, operating in Pueblo, Colorado, has declined in importance over the past decade. Traditionally, it has provided access to government pamphlets that are free or priced inexpensively. Given tighter agency budgets, a switch to electronic products and services, and a sharp decline in the number of pamphlets produced annually, the diversity of the stock of this service has dwindled. Agencies. They might use one of the other dissemination channels, or their own services, exclusively or partially. The General Accounting Office (GAO), for instance,

~vernmenf

~ub/is~ing: Past to Present

317

produces a monthly list of its reports. Both that list and one copy of each report can be obtained free of charge from the GAO. One problem with reliance on this list is that reports are publicly available months before their inclusion. Co~equently, the GAO allows more timely access through publicly available electronic networks, which announce the availability of new reports; individuals can then request print copies from the GAO or, in some instances, obtain a machine-readable copy. Although the average price for CD-ROMs produced by Federal agencies is less than $50, pricing is highly variable and so are the methods for arriving at the p&es. Depending on the product, an idiosyncratic agency policy or a specific statutory mandate may be the key determinant of pricing. In the case of the ~~fio~u~ ZY&e Data Rurzk (NTL)B) ~Dep~ment of Commer~), the law autho~ng it specifies the pricing formula is linked to Freedom of I~ormation (FOI) Act charges, Unless an agency has a revolving fund, money generated through product sales are likely to be deposited to miscellaneous receipts in the US, Treasury. In such cases, the agency does not get to use the money. Although most agencies do not sell their CD-ROM products through the GPO or the NTIS, production and distribution costs might force a rethinking of that position. Budgetary, deficit reduction, and political decisions, as well as legal requirements, impact on publication programs of any level of government in the U.S. It is worth noting that some Federal agencies, as well as state and local governments, view government publications, information, and data as a means to generate revenue to defray some operating expenses. Congressional CommIttees and Documents Rooms. Some committees distribute ~noun~ments of newly released publications. As well, committees maintain publication units, which respond to requests for titles in stock. There is both a House and Senate Documents Room. The former accepts public requests for bills and resolutions, whereas House committees provide access to other types of publications, The Senate Documents Room serves Congress and will not accept outside requests, by telephone, for publications. It will respond to written requests or honor requests if citizens send them to members af Congress. As well, some members, for example, through university facilities within their state or congressional district, maintain gopher systems; however, the contents of these vary according to the currency of content. In other words, they might contain the version of a bill other than the mark-up copy. Efforts are underway to make more congressional materials available through Internet access. Private S&or. The private sector performs a number of useful services. For example, it provides access to publications that the GPO did not print or that are not longer available from the GPO sales program and agencies. It also produces indexing and abstracting services that complement the services provided by government agencies, including the NTIS and the GPO. For titles that are not copyrighted, the private sector may engage in republication: reproduction of a publication and dissemination through bookstores and other outlets. Depositmy Library Prqpms. A number of depository library programs operate witbin the U.S. national government and state and local govemments, as well as

318

GOVERNMENT

INFORMATION

QUARTERLY

Vol. 1Z/No. 3/l 995

international organizations and governments of other countries. The program administered by the GPO is the largest and best known. The program was formally established in the late 18SOs, when responsibility for distribution of congressional publication was transferred from the Department of State to the Department of Interior. The Secretary of Interior, the law stipulated, could designate “colleges, public libraries, athenaeums, literary and scientific institutions, boards of trade, or public associations” for the free receipt of these publications (11 Statures at Large 253). Further legislation mandated that the selection of these institutions be based upon congressional designation. The position of Superintendent of Public Documents was created in 1869, and this Office, located in the Department of Interior, was charged with the responsibility for maintaining the depository library program. The Printing Act of 1895, which consolidated the laws on printing, binding, and distribution of public documents, transferred the Office of the Superintendent of Public Documents to the GPO and renamed it the Su~~tendent of Documents. The Supe~ntendent was authorized to prepare indexes and catalogs as welf as to deliver “all government publications” “to designated depositories or other libraries for public use without charge.” The Act, in effect, established a “systematic program for the bibliographic control of government d~uments.n The Depository Library Act of 1962, which consolidated existing statutes, increased the potential number of depositories, expanded the number of publication categories available for depository distribution, and created a maximum of two regional libraries per state. These libraries were charged with the development of comp~hensive collections and with working with selective depositories (i.e., libraries which determine the amount of publication to be received) within their jurisdiction. Because the depository program concentrates on government publications, a definition of that term assumes added impo~an~ in an electronic isolation age. The USC (Title 44, Section 1901) defined such a publication, for that chapter of Title 44, as “informational matter which is published as an individual document at government expense or as required by law.” However, neither the section nor its legislative history defined key terms: “i~ormation~ matter,” “published,” or “as an individual document.” Chapter 19 required agencies to make publications, except those intended only for official use, required for strictly administrative or operational purposes, classified for reasons of national security, and having no public interest or educational value, available for depository distribution. However, the agencies themselves could determine whether or not a title comprised a publication, one for public distribution. Because of this, ignorance of the law, oversight, or the fact that the agencies might have to pay for a print run intended for depository distribution, a number of titles become fugitive and escape the bibliographic control efforts of the GPO and the depository library program. Desktop publishing makes it more difficult for the GPO to monitor agency publishing and to ensure depository distribution. Despite these problems, from 1981 through 1991, more than 514,000 separate publications entered the depository program, primarily as microfiche or paper copy. For fiscal year 1993, the GPO distributed a total of 54,591 titles and, for fiscal year 1994,44,643 titles; for 1993, the GPO distributed 20,755 of these titles in paper copy and, for 1994, 15,269 titles in paper copy-a decline of 26.4 percent. Pub~catio~

~ver~me~t

~ub/ishing: Past to Present

319

distributed on CD-ROMs are increasingly entering the program. While more than half of the libraries select this medium, a number of them experience problems in integrating these titles effectively into their information services. The depository program provides access to publications and their information content. For the program to offer access to information and data, independent of a publication, would require a change in public law. However, as agencies produce electronic products and services, there are increased opportunities to bypass the GPO and its depository program and to communicate directly to the public via electronic bulletin boards, diskettes, and so forth. In summary, not all print publications have an electronic counterpart, and the GPO neither prints nor sells all government pub~catio~. Fu~he~ore, there are various dissemination channels for govemment publications~ isolations data. The practice of the U.S. Bureau of the Census illustrates this point. The GPO prints and sells paper publications of the Bureau, whereas the Bureau sells diskettes, CD-ROMs, and magnetic tapes, which do not duplicate the contents of paper publications. It does, however, provide State Data Centers with copies of magnetic tapes for that state. The Bureau only offers some of its data available on magnetic tape in the form of CD-ROM products. These products must be easily manipulated using dBase. Public Availability (Other Governments) Other levels of government in the United States produce far fewer than 22 types of pub~cations. In some cases, they might combine more than one type or might selectively publish a particular type. For example, state legislatures may not publish hearings and local governments might combine rules, regulations, and ordinances within one source. Most states produce bluebooks, or their equivalent, which are similar to the United States Government Manual, and current and retrospective checklists-lists of publications, state directories, rosters, and statistical abstracts. In some cases, universities and the private sector produce these reference sources. At present, reduced budgets affect the frequency of issuance, timeliness of publication, and comprehensiveness of these reference sources. Few municipalities exercise bibliographic control over their publishing, and there is limited distribution of their publications. As a consequence, newspapers and the commerci~ly produced Index to Current Urban ~o~rnent~ are indis~nsable tools for monito~ng local govemment activities and policy development. Public or official publications of a country might be defined as informational matter published by a government, regardless of medium, but not intended solely for internal distribution. The word “published” must be interpreted broadly enough to encompass mimeographed material. Countries may enter into exchange agreements, e.g., between national libraries, for the provision of government publications. Some countries have an official central distributor of government publications. There might also be a wellestablished book trade, sales outlets scattered throughout the country, and agencies responsive to direct requests for their publications. Other countries might lack some or all of these channels. Even when there is a government printing office, its activities may be limited to the production of publications, not their distribution. Except for the national statistical office, agencies may not respond to requests. It is possible,

320

GOVERNMENT

INFORMATION

QUARTERLY

Vol. 1~/NO. 3/l 995

though, that these countries have vendors that, although not widely known, supply publications. Perhaps some examples are in order. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO) in the United Kingdom serves as a single centralized government publisher. Still, the private sector might provide access to non-HMSO publications. France, on the other hand, has several official publishers: Documentation Francaise, the Imprimerie Nationale, the Institut de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques, and Direction des Journaux Officiels. Other countries have designated a commercial bookseller-such as Sweden, with Allmanna Forlaget-as the distributor of their publications. Latin American government publications are poorly distributed through agencies and the local booktrade, The countries maintain poor bibliographic control over their publications. Having to rely on book dealers and export booksellers is time-consuming and often costly. Nigerian government publications are difficult to trace and acquire because of their limited print runs, inadequate distribution, and poor bibliographic control. Some gove~ment printers disseminate their pub~catio~ through their own bookshops. These bookshops, however, tend to be poorly organized and do not have current lists of publications available for sale. Older publications are difIicult to acquire unless someone visits a bookshop and rummages through the collection. Given the diversity of practices and the problems associated with access, it is often best to examine official guides to publishing of a region or a country, as well as to talk with individuals knowledgeable in collecting publications from that area. Gov~rnm~t

Controk

Not all government publications may be available to the public. In many settings, limitations in this regard occur as a consequence of the form of government being other than a democracy or a near democracy. However, democracies, such as the United States, may restrict the public availability of some government publications. Economics may be a factor. In the event of that an agency or a congressional committee exhausts its supply of a title, that body may not authorize a new print run due to other policy and production priorities or an unwillin~ess to pay for the extra copies. There are also various policy reasons for restricting the public availability of a government publication. For example, distribution might be limited to authorized personnel within a Federal agency or group of agencies; or a government publication may contain sensitive defense, dipIomatic, law enforcement, or technological information bearing upon the security of the country. Availability of the publication might be legally restricted pursuant to security classification, intelligence protection, or atomic energy authority. Procedural Public Access Federal agency restriction of the public availability of publications, however, may be challenged under the Freedom of I~ormation (FOI) Act. Enacted in 1966, this law provides any person-individual or corporate, regardless of nationality-with presumptive access to identifiable, existing records of Federal departments and agencies without having to demonstrate a need or even a reason for such a request. The burden of proof for withholding material sought by the public is placed upon the govemment.

Gwemment Publishing

fast to Present

321

Qualifying its rule of disclosure, the statute specifies nine categories of isolation that may be protected at the discretion of the agency. Allowance is made for the exemption of: (1) information properly classified for national defense or foreign policy purposes as secret under criteria established by a presidential executive order; (2) information relating solely to agency internal personnel rules and practices; (3) data stocky excepted from disclosure by a statute which either requires that matters be withheld in a nondisffe~on~ manner or which establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld; (4) trade secrets and commercial or financial isolation obtained from a person and privileged or confidentiak (5) inter- or intra-awns memoranda or letters which would not be available by law except to an agency in litigation; (6) personnel, medical, and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; (7) certain kinds of investigator records compiled for law enforcement purposes; (8) certain information relating to the regulation of financial institutions; and (9) geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning oil wells. The access arrangements of the stature may be invoked ““unless the materials are promptly published and copies offered for sale.” Dispute over the availability of agency records may be settled ultimately in court. While the FOI Act does not define “agency records,” its reference to “materials . . . promptly published” indicates, on its face, that government pnb~catio~s prepared by an agency are within its scope, so long as they do not meet the twin standards of being “promptly published” and “offered for sale.n Access to a government publication passing this threshold test, however, may still be defeated by the application of one or more the FOI Act’s exemptions. While every U.S. state has a public information access law, not all of these are of the freedom of isolation type with a presumptive right of access, explicit exemptions to the rule of disclosure, and ultimate procedural redress of access disputes before the courts. In general, over two-thirds of the states and the District of Columbia have FOI laws and examples of comprehensive statutes may be found in California, Connecticut, and New York. A little less than half of the states have public information access laws that cover records beyond those of state executive branch agencies. In a few cases, state FOf laws also provide for presumptively open public policy meetings of governmental entities and special access by individu~s to state files m~nt~ned on them personally. Freedom of i~o~a~on laws have been adopted in several foreign countries as well, Sweden enacted such a measure in 1766 and it sub~q~entIy became part of the nation’s ~o~titution. Finland was next in 1951, followed by Denmark and Norway in 1970, the Netherlands and France in 1978, and Australia, Canada, and New Zealand in f982, All of the latter were simply statutes, the most compressive being those in Australia and Canada. FOI laws also have been adopted at the local level in the United Kingdom and Japan, and at the inte~~iate or state levels in Anstralis and Canada as well. Stakeholders, or the Information Community Stakeholders refers to those groups that influence or attempt to influence information policies affecting government publishing and the management of government

322

GOVERNMENT

INFORMATION

QUARTERLY

Vol. 12/No. 3/1995

i~ormation resources. Within the Federal government, stakeholders include the Offtce of Management and Budget @MB), with its Circular A-130 and assorted bulletins and memoranda; agencies and their rules, regulations, practices relating to the information life cycle (creation to permanent retention or disposition), and isolation services; and Congress, with its legislative, oversight, and appropriations processes. The public access community includes assorted stakeholders which generally monitor government activities and lobby for broader public access to gover~ent isolation. Members of this community include professional associations, such as the American Library Association (ALA), American Association of Law Librarians (AALL), and Association of Research Libraries (ARL), all of which have some type of government relations committee. Also included within the public access community are groups such as OMB Watch, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, The Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the Coalition for Networked Information. These groups might issue position statements and serve as watchdogs on how the government manages and disseminates information. The Information Industry Association (IIA), another stakeholder, is the trade association of numerous companies that create and distribute information products and services. In general, the IIA favors government not competing with the private sector, particularly in the value-added area of taking government information and making it more accessible through repackaging or enhancement. The IIA issues policy statements and position papers. It also meets with policymakers concerning new legislation, rules, and regulations; and participates in numerous congressional hearings. As the United States moves toward the adoption of a national isolation infrastructure, the number and diversity of stakeholders increases. The telecommunications community, for one, becomes involved in shaping information policies and practices. The result will be a more complex environment for pohc~a~ng due to completing viewpoints and preferences. Adding to the complexity is the stake that state and local governments have in the outcome, and, as the infrastructure assumes more global proportions, the oppo~unities of stakeholders in other countries. Government Publishing and Propaganda The content of a government publication is, of course, determined by government officials. Even a verbatim hearing transcript, for example, results from a proceeding organized by such oflicials, can be i~uen~d by questions and exchanges they and their staff have developed ahead of time, and may be “edited” prior to publication. In the production of a narrative product, the subject matter, data content, and writing style are all subject to control by government officials. Ma~puiation and censorship can replace fair and objective management in these situations. Furthermore, propaganda can result. In the Federal government, various checks and balances-among the three branches and between government and the public-militate against misuse of information functions by officials. Congressional distaste for Executive Branch manipulation of information was apparent in 1913, when a statutory pro~bition was set on the use of public funds “to pay a publicity expert unless specifically appropriated for that purpose.”

Government PubMing

Past to Present

323

When President Woodrow Wilson sought to establish a premier agency for combined propaganda and censorship functions during U.S. involvement in World War I, he did not turn to Congress, but relied, instead, upon his own constitutional authority and financial resources. The Committee on Public Isolation, created by an executive order, in April 1917, was largely funded from the President’s discretionary national security and defense account. Congress cautiously appropriated only $1.25 million, less than one-filth of the Com~t~e’s total budget, during its three-year existence, and pressed for the panel’s termination several months after the armistice. During U.S. involvement in the next world war, propaganda was largely handled by the Office of War Isolation (OWI), estab~shed in June 1942 by another executive order. The new entity immediately aroused congressional suspicions because it not only appeared to be engaging in questionable and illegal “flackery” but also was seen by opponents to be the latest in a series of publicity structures promoting the New Deal. Soon OWI publications came under congressional criticism. Verbal characterization and photographic depiction of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the first issue of Victory, an OWI magazine designed for oversees distribution, brought allegations that this was expensive campaign literature designed to help the Chief Executive win a fourth term. A pamphlet favoring payroll withholding for income tax payment was resented and a booklet on inflation was criticized for supporting policy that was still under congressional consideration. Distaste for the domestic publicity efforts of the OWI became apparent in 1943 when the House Committee on Appropriations reduced the Office’s funding request for homefront activities by almost 40 percent to $5.5 million. House floor debate on OWI finances resulted in even more drastic action: a 218-114 vote to abolish entirely the domestic branch of the Office. The Senate rejected this prospect and reinstated $3.5 million for OWI program activities within the United States. This amount was reduced to $2.75 million by conferees of the two houses, prompting the OWI to curtail sharply its domestic publicity efforts. The OWI was subsequently terminated a couple of weeks after V-J Day, its responsibilities for government information management being vested eventually in the Office of Government Reports, which Congress also constrained, and its oversees functions being transferred to the Department of State. Congressional concern about government propaganda activities was once again evident in 1972. In the aftermath of the domestic airing of a United States Isolation Agency (USIA) film, Czechoslovakia 1968, in a televised report, a dispute arose over the legality of the USIA distribution of its materials within U.S. borders. In reaction to an Attorney General ruling sustaiuing the showing, Congress included in the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1972 a virtual blanket prohibition on the USIA making its products available within the United States. Congressional overseers have also continued to monitor various aspects of Federal gove~ent public affairs activities and spending. Sometimes publication is itself a check on the validity or acceptability of government information, particularly in the case of a policy pronouncement. In order to have legal effect, most presidential proclamations and executive orders must be pub~shed in the Federal Register, which permits their scrutinization by the public or by surrogates of the public such as the press and interest groups. Proposed new or revised agency regulations oftentimes are pub~shed in the Regifrer and public comment on them is invited during a period of time prior to their final issuance.

324

GOVERNMENT

INFORMATION

QUARTERLY

Vol. 1~/NO. 3/l 995

The veracity of information provided at congressional hearings and appearing in the published transcripts of such proceedings can be reinforced by requiring witnesses to swear an oath of t~t~ulness regarding their testimony. Congressional committee reports on proposed legislation and Senate committee reports on nominees, whether approving or disapproving, must be sustained by a majority of committee members before being filed for publication. When interpreting a statute, Federal judges may turn to the pertinent House or Senate legislative reports on it, knowing they represent the views of a majority of committee members, who vote on the report, and often are useful to understand the meaning or the intent of a law. Committee prints, which are another type of congressional document, do not enjoy the same authoritative status as committee reports because they do not directly convey legislators’ considered understanding of legislation. Federal judges may also turn to the Congressional Record for House and Senate floor debate on legislation enacted into law to gain a better understanding of the meaning or intent of a statute. It is the factor of debate, opposing points of view checking each other, that gives this particular type of information a higher degree of reliability than may be accorded to other remarks appearing in the Congressio~~ Record. Nonetheless, there are rules of the House and the Senate that contribute to the integrity of the Recordsk content. Archiving Publications Many pub~catio~ of the Federal government are ~chived~~ef~ly preserved for use after the production supply has been exhausted-in a variety of ways. The Archivist of the Untied States has discretionary authority to accept for deposit at the National Archives and Records Administration the records of Federal entities detect by that official to have sufficient historical or other value to warrant their continued preservation by the U.S. government. Because the Archivist selects from the universe of Federal “records,” which includes government publications, those materials having not merely historical or other value but sufficient such value to be preserved at public expense, the acceptance of government publications for deposit at the National Archives is conditioned by such factors as historical sig~can~, uniqueness, and rarity. The Archivist is aware that many kinds of government publications are collected and preserved in other institutions. For example, the NTIS archives scientific and technical reports and papers assigned to it. Consequently, the holdings of the National Archives consist primarily of unpublished Federal records. The majority repository for government publications is the Library of Congress, although there is selective retention of state and local government publications. U.S. government materials may be found in the Library’s general collection, the holdings of its Law Library, established in 1832, and those of the Congressional Research Service. The House of Representatives and the Senate each maintain a library of their publications, dating from the earliest days of the Federal government. Many departments and agencies also have libraries which include their own publications, although, with the exception of the National Agricultural Library and the National Library of Medicine collections, they are largely of relatively recent date. The Federal depository libraries, while their holdings are uneven, and various major metropolitan

Government Pub/isbing:Past to Present

325

and campus-based libraries retain publications of the Federal government. Furthermore, there are problems relating to the review and archiving of electronic isolation resources, the low level of funding support which the administration and Congress allot to preservation, and an inability to determine which e-mail messages constitute Federal records. Published state government records and documents, pursuant to law, are selectively preserved on the basis of their historical value. They may be deposited at a state archival facility or at a state library. In some settings, both types of institutions retained state government publications, but the state library might provide a fuller and more readily accessible range of such materials. In other settings, unpublished state government records and documents are retained in the archives and publications are primarily placed in the state library collections. Similar archival arrangements prevail in many foreign democracies and near democracies. ELECTRONIC

PHENOMENON

Policy Framework The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (PRA) directed the OMB to develop Federal information policies and standards and to reduce the isolation collection and recordkeeping requirements that the government imposes on the public. The act also included provisions for the m~agement of government i~ormation resources and the auditing of all major government information systems. Each agency was required to designate a senior official charged with isolation resources management to report directly to the agency’s head. To carry out some of its responsibi~ties under the act, the OMB issued Circular No. A-130, “The Management of Federal Information Resources,” on December 12,1985. The circular encouraged agencies to rely on the private sector to disseminate government information and stressed the need for government to manage the life cycle of the i~ormation that it collected and generated. Although the circular required agencies to comply with 44 USC 1902 and make their publications available for depository distribution, the question of whether or not electronic products and services comprised publications arose and would go unanswered until the 1990s. In 1986, the PRA was reauthorized. That reauthorization formally recognized the role of the Federal government as a disseminator of information. In 1989, Congress failed to reauthorize the PRA and, since then, it has not been able to agree on such legislation. As a result, the OMB, an executive agency, has set government-wide policy using Circular A- 130. In 1991, the GPO’s general counsel, in a memorandum on “Cost Sharing' for the Dissemination of Government Information in Electronic Formats,” admitted that, if products and services were, indeed, publications, the agency lacked the budget to distribute all of them to depository libraries. Clearly, for the GPO, the “obligation” of depository distribution of electronic publications and services “must be viewed in the context of available funds and Program priorities.‘” Furthermore, “such obligation may be limited.” This memorandum also served as a reminder that the GPO operated within the policy framework adopted by its oversight committee, the

326

~OVERNME~

INFORMATION

QUARTERLY

Vol. 1Z/No. 311995

Joint Committee on Printing (JCP), and the appropriations committees of both houses of Congress. In June 1993, the OMB issued a revised Circular A-130 that focused on the dissemination of electronic resources4 The new circular did not distinguish between products and services, but reinforced agency responsibility to provide for depository dist~bution of government publications. The OMB did encourage agencies to supply the GPO with “electronic information dissemination products” for depository distribution; “for electronic information dissemination products other than online services, agencies may have the option of having GPO produce the information dissemination product for them, in which case GPO would pay for depository library costs.” Although the circular did not address this point, in such cases, the GPO would have to rely on its General Counsel’s memorandum and its present level of approp~ations. As is evident, more attention now focuses on government information resources than on government publications per se. The 1994 revision of Circular A-130 focused on the other half of information resources-the technology infrastructure and the corresponding life cycle.’ The inclusion of electronic resources that agencies have not labeled as publications in the depository program might require a rewriting of Title 44, Chapter 19. Agencies do recognize that they have options for information and publication dissemination, and are exploring wide use of the Internet. The av~lab~ity of publications and information, through different distribution and dissemination m~h~sms, provides agencies and the public with choices, thereby reinforcing that distribution and dissemination occur in a decentralized environment. That environment contains duplication and inefficiencies as well as well as effective programs and services. Furthermore, agencies are experimenting with new dissemination mechanisms such as information kiosks. Some agencies have developed inventory/locator systems that list or contain their products and services, whereas the work of other agencies is not computerized and the concept of a locator system is not tightly woven into the institutions fabric of these agencies. Nonetheless, by law, both the NTIS and the GPO provide gateway access to bulletin boards and other services of various agencies. Also, the Library of Congress has developed a locator system that provides access to publications, information, and services of different agencies, and the OMB supports the development of a governmentwide information inventory and locator system. Interagency Workshops on ln~mat~n

Di~minat~

In 1991, government agencies began a series of interagency workshops that produced a policy framework on public access to government electronic information.6 That framework contains a purpose statement, a guiding principle, and policy considerations (guidelines covering type of program, program rationale, technology approach, costing flexibility, security controls, and private-sector, state, and local government roles). Moreover, the framework is consistent with the provisions of Circular A-130. Such a framework supplements Circular A-130 by giving agencies direction in the development of electronic information systems intended to meet the information needs of both the agency and the public. Also, the workshops have explored the role of

averment

Fub/is~in~

327

Past to Present

agencies in determining the isolation needs of their customers-those direct benefit-and in being accountable for the service provided.7

receiving a

Preservation of Electronic Information Resources As the amount of electronic information proliferates, important questions become: l

* l l

l

Which information resources merit retention, and for how long? How will the review process be accomplished in a timely and cost-effective manner? Who will conduct that review? How can the government ensure that the technology of tomorrow can read and handle the technology of today and yesterday? What type of provisions must agencies make for the review and preservation of electronic information resources?

Such questions are only now being partially answered. Much information and, by extension, many publications are being lost. The result, in part, is a loss of agency memory or history, as it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to reconstruct the development of a particular policy-for example, a rule or regulation. National lnformat~

Infrastructure and the fnternet

The lntemet has gradually evolved since the late 196Os,when work of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) led to ARPANet, an experimental network. In the 198Os,funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF) resulted in the development of a high-speed backbone network, NSFNET. The NSF also coordiited a tiered structure of interco~e~ed computer networks by finding the establishment of regional networks to interconnect educational and research org~ations and their indi~du~ computer networks. These regional networks provided access and connection to NSFNET, which is one of the federally funded backbone networks connected through the Internet. The Internet, a global computer network, is undergoing transition. The NSF is guiding it toward privatization and commercialization. Nonetheless, there is an expectation that the Internet will expand into the National Information Infrastructure (NII) that connects government, business, industry, libraries, homes, and schools. As the nation moves more toward the development of that infrastructure, there will be increased opportunities to gain remote access to government and nongovernment publications, information, and data. The present Internet hints at the information riches that are already (and will become) accessible. E-mail and government bulletin boards increasingly provide the public with a broad range of services and information. Most of the bulletin boards are still dialup, but there is some interest in making more of them accessible over the Internet. Another type of networked-based access to agency information is anonymous file transfer protocol (ftp). An agency may store full-text files on an Internet host that functions as a file server. Individuals at remote locations can then log onto the agency’s

328

GOVERNMENT

INFORMATION

QUARTERLY

Vol. 1~/NO. 3/l 995

computer via the Internet, anonymously using a universal guest password, and download copies of these files across the network to their own local hosts. A newer network access tool that is rapidly gaining widespread use is the wide area information server (WAIS), a standards-based method for network information retrieval. WAIS and WAIS-like software are comprised of a number of programs based on a client-server architecture and designed specifically for network information retrieval. As is evident, as the annual production of government information and records proliferates, the Federal government wants to expand its dissemination efforts and improve public access to both government publication and ~o~ation, but in a manner most cost-effective to individual agencies. The national or international networked environment offers an excellent means to accomplish this goal. However, agency practices outstrip the ability of the literature to keep pace and document the changes. Furthermore, access to electronic information requires extensive training and support, as well as uncovering new systems and keeping track of present ones and the changes which they are undergoing. Yet, when agencies reduce expenditures, in accordance with congressional and Executive Branch expectations, they are most likely to reduce or eliminate training programs, thereby impairing their ability to embrace technology, the NII, and the expectations expressed in Circular A-130. OVERVIEW AND THE FUTURE The government has a lot of potentially valuable information that ought to be more readily available to the public. At the same time, the Federal government is focusing more on information dissemination and service quality, engaging in strategic planning, setting goals and objectives, and developing mechanisms for evaluating the extent to which agencies meet these goals and objectives. As this managerial framework extends more to electronic government information resources, and concurs with Circular A130 and other policy instruments, it becomes more appropriate to refer to government notation resources than to documents or publi~tions. ~b~catio~ represent a subset of information resources. Nonetheless, the production of government publications and the role of the GPO in the years ahead are issues of current importance. Early in his ad~tration, President William Clinton inaugurated a National Performance Review (NPR) task force to evaluate and make recommendations concerning the activities and operations of the Federal departments and agencies. Among the reform proposals offered in the September 1993 final report of the NPR was one calling for the elimination of the GPO monopoly over the procurement of government printing.* A 1993 House-passed bill (H.R. 3400) implementing various NPR recommendations, however, continued the GPO monopoly on punting pr~u~ment, but would have downsized the GPO, closed most agency printing facilities to effect savings, and directed that public printing policy “maximize competitive procurement from the private sector.” The bill remained in committee in the Senate when the 103rd Congress adjourned sine die. In his July 22,1994, statement on signing the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 1995, President Clinton took exception to provisions expanding the definition of printing and requiring the agencies to receive a certification from the Public Printer

~~rnment

Fublis~ing: Past to Present

329

before procuring the production of certain official documents from printers other than the GPO. To minimize what he called “the potential constitutions deficiencies” of the legislation, the President indicated that “the exclusive authority of the Government Printing Office over ‘the procurement of any printing related to the production of Government publications’ will be restricted to procurement of documents intended primarily for distribution to and use by the general public.” He concluded by expressing his “eagerness and resolve to accomplish a comprehensive reform of Federal printing in accordance with constitutional principles” and along the lines recommended by the NPR report9 By mid-August 1994, the GPO reportedly was headed toward a $5 million deficit due to the loss of printing which Federal agencies were procuring from other sources. Although the GPO was taking steps to offset the debt by furloughing employees, eliminating 150 management positions, closing printing plants outside of Washington, and rescinding some pay increases, the deficit was expected to reach $30 million in fscal year 1995 if the decline in agency printing continued. Shortly thereafter, however, an accommodation was reached.” In a September 19, 1994, memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies, Alice M. Rivlin, Acting Director of the OMB, indicated that the “leadership of the Con~~ion~ com~tt~s of ju~s~~ion~ had responded to President Clinton’s expressed desire to effect comprehensive Federal printing reform and had “agreed to work with the Administration to produce a legislative approach to solving this problem next year,” Consequently, wrote Rivlin, “we have agreed to maintain the srart(s quo regarding present printing and duplicating arrangements during Fiscal Year 1995 to allow this initiative to go forward.“” This matter awaits treatment by the 104th Congress. Within the United States and some other countries, government publishing programs must be viewed in the context of information resources management, budget cutting, cost savings, and, in more developed countries, an environment shifting from print publication to the electronic collection and dissemination of information. Tbe Federal government, as one example, now issues fewer paper-copy publications than in previous years (although the number of publications remains staggering) and prefers to distribute its publications through a more cost-effective medium: microfiche, CD-ROM, or other electronic media. To what extent the publishing program of the Federal government will be overhauled and upgraded in the process of reinventing the GPO remains to be seen. Moreover, with increased av~ab~ty of electronic resources and the ability of agencies to bypass traditional paper publication, there is less need for agencies to require the services of the GPO and NTIS. As a result, both the GPO and NTIS place more attention on their gateways and the advantages of agencies d~t~buting information resources through them. With the expectation that agencies will list their information resources in locator systems, such gateways have increased in importance. Furthermore, with the increased av~ab~ty of electronic information resources, locator systems have become a means of bibiographic control and, in some instances, access to information resources. Clearly, this is a time of rapid change and it is difficult to obtain a comprehensive picture of the i~o~ationd~t~bution agencies of all government agencies.

330

GOVERNMENT

INFORMATION

QUARTERLY

Vol. 1~/NO. 3/l 995

REFERENCES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7. 8. 9. 10.

11.

See Harold C. Relyea, “Historical Development of Federal Information Policy,” in United States Government Information Policies: Yiews and Perspectives (Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1989), pp. 2548. Peter Hemon and Charles R. McClure, P&lie Access io Go~~ment Znfo~tion (Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1988), pp. 83-93. Anthony J. Zagami, “Memorandum: ‘“Cost Sharing’for the Dissemination of Government Information in Electronic Formats,” Government Znjhmation Quarterly, 8 (1991), p. 387-391. Office of Management and Budget, “Circular A-130, ‘The Management of Federal Information Resources,“’ Federal Register, 58 (July 2, 1993), pp. 36068-36087. office of Management and Budget, “Circular A-130, ‘The Management of Federal Information Resources,“’ Fe&raI Register, 59 (July 25.1994), pp. 3790637928. See Alvin Pesachowitz, “Interagency Conference on Public Access,” Government Information Quarterly, 9 (1992): 187-198; John Okay and Roxanne Wiiams, “Interagency Workshop on Public Access: A Summary for Historical Purposes,” Government Zt&ormatiqnQuarterly, 10 (1993): 237-253; Reed Phillips and Theresa Carroll, “Interagency Public Access Conference: Summary Report,” Government Information Quarterly, 10 (1993): 461-476; James P. Jadlos and Claude J. Christensen, “Fourth Interagency Conference on Public Access: Summary Report,” Government Znformation Quarterly, 1I (H&t), pp. 89-125. See Neil J. Stilhnan and Norman Oslik, “Working with the Public to Ensure Public Access to Federal Information in an Electronic Age,” Governmenl Information Quarterly, 12 (1995), pp. 163-198. See Office of the Vice President, From Red Tape to Results: Creating a Government fiat Works Better d Costs fess, (Washington, DC: GPO, 1993), pp. 55-56. See Weekly Compilation of Residential Documents, 30 (July 29, 1994), pp. 1541-1542. Bill McAllister, “Competition Sets GPO Into a Tide of Red Ink,” Washington Post (August 17, 1994), p. A17. This memorandum is reproduced in Congressionul Record, 130 (September 29,1994), pp. E1997-El998 (daily edition).