GPO micropublishing: An historical review and critical analysis

Library Acquisitions: Practice and Theory, Vol. 2, Pergamon Press. Printed in the U.S.A.

pp. 33-44 (1978).

0364-6408/78/0101-0033$02.00/O Copyright 0 1978 Pergamon Press

GPO MICROPUBLISHING: AN HISTORICAL

REVIEW AND CRITICAL ANALYSIS SUSAN H. MacDONALD CHARLES F. SIEGER, JR. Public Documents

Section

William R. Perkins

Library

Duke University Durham,

North

Carolina

27706

ABSTRACT Government documents constitute a substantial segment of the receipts of most depository libraries. The volume of documents and their varying formats are therefore a concern to library administrators, technical and public service librarians, as well as documents librarians. The Government Printing Office’s recent microfiche distribution program results in part from an attempt to implement the Depository Library Act of 1962 and in part from GPO’s interest in containing its costs. The authors discuss the ambiguities in the law, a present cause of confusion and self-contradiction. An extended historical discussion provides a perspective for the reader. Following that, there is a review of the specific events leading up to the present microfiche program, and an examination of the ramifications GPO’s pre- and post-microfiche activities have had and will have on library acquisition and servicing procedures. The authors maintain that the law itself needs rewriting, but primarily focus on specific concerns for implementation of the present program because the larger matter of legislation cannot properly be addressed here.

. . . there is no lack of information comprehensive nor coordinated.1

policy

in the United

States but that policy

which is already

in place is neither

The United States Government Printing Office’s micropublishing program is a recent manifestation of Congress’ narrow-minded, piecemeal approach to a national information policy. While concern for a logical, inclusive information policy has only recently been voiced by former President Ford’s Domestic Council, the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, and the Commission on Federal Paperwork, it has long received the attention of documents librarians. The seeds of confusion and self-contradiction may be found in the historical development of the law, in inadequate funding of support services, and in a general attitude toward government information that has too often limited itself, stopping at the doors of federal buildings. That attitude stemmed in part from the manner in which the Congress has viewed the 33

34

SUSAN H. MacDONALDand CHARLES F. SIEGER, JR.

Government Printing Office: although Congress has shown interest in the distribution of documents to the public, it has also viewed GPO, since its inception, as the principle printer for the federal government. But Congress has also looked upon GPO as its private printing establishment, failing to consider GPO’s requirements and needs for collecting and distributing documents from the other branches of government. To put the issues into perspective, it is necessary to first examine the historical context.

THE ORIGINS OF CONFUSION When Congress first convened in 1789, printing was primitive and relatively costly. Furthermore, the first Congresses could not afford to have their debates recorded verbatim, but they did commission private printers to produce their reports and documents. They also passed legislation each year to ensure the distribution of these materials by the Department of State to state and selected university libraries. This system continued until 1813 when a general law was finally passed extending the distribution of Congressional documents to every future Congress. While not an official depository program, in the legislated distribution of these commercially printed Congressional documents lay the foundation for the depository program that we know today. Unfortunately, neither the printing nor the distribution program was without its difficulties. The most blatant flaw lay in the printing operation which had become fraught with various forms of political corruption and incompetence. After 50 years of sporadic debate over the problem, Congress finally agreed that the government should provide facilities for its own printing. In 1860, the Joint Resolution in Relation to the Public Printing (the “organic printing act”) was passed, and a year later the Government Printing Office (GPO) began operations.* GPO operated under the direction and control of the Joint Committee on Printing (established in 1846 to “remedy any neglect, delay, or waste” in federal printing operations), although the Public Printer was appointed by the President, as he is today. By the 1850s the number of depository libraries and volume of documents had grown to the point where distribution responsibilities were becoming too great for one executive department already occupied with many other duties. In 1857 the Department of State relinquished its depository distribution responsibilities to the Library of Congress and the Department of the Interior for distribution of Congressional documents to state and university libraries respectively. Other changes soon took place. In 1869 the scope of documents to be distributed to libraries was expanded to include those of executive departments (although executive reports submitted to Congress had been, and would continue to be, distributed to libraries in Congressional edition).3 Congress was justified in its belief that libraries needed to receive the output of the executive branch just as much as they needed that of the legislative. Congress was also justified in its incorporation of executive document distribution procedures into those already in existence for legislative materials. However, while Congress allowed these executive departments to take advantage of GPO’s printing services, it did nothing to require such centralization of processing. Executive departments still negotiated separate contracts with commercial printers to produce their documents and hence proved less willing than Congress to take advantage of GPO’s services. At the time the law was passed, centralization of either printing or distribution was not an issue. Indeed, distribution itself was divided between the two branches of government. But it was this relatively obscure law, more than any other, that initiated the confusion that would plague documents librarians, and many others, for the next century. At issue is the fundamental question of whether or not Congress can enforce a requirement that the executive branch work within an information policy established by Congress.

GPO Micropublishing

LEGISLATIVE

35

REMEDIES

Initially, the Government Printing Office met Congress’ expectations; it produced far better quality documents at much less cost than had the private contractors. Congress was pleased, as were several executive agencies which began turning to GPO for their printing requests as well. While not all executive agencies were converted, some were, and GPO’s work grew considerably. In 1873 Congress broke its last ties with the commercial printers by transferring the printing of Congressional debates to GPO. The demands upon GPO became more than it could adequately handle, so that by the late 1870s the now-familiar pleas for space, equipment, and funds began to be heard. Agencies which had only recently started to use GPO were less patient with delays than Congress and soon acquired their own printing presses. Thus decentralization of government printing began anew. Depository distribution was suffering similar complaints. Documents were indiscriminately sent to libraries, independent of need. Materials were distributed by the appropriate departments, by scores of inappropriate ones, and by individual Congressmen. Even so, many valuable and needed documents were not made available through any of these channels. Printing and distribution were not the only problem. The basic matter of access to those documents which were distributed was left totally to the receiving library. Inconsistent or complicated numbering of reports, the absence of distinctive titles or other descriptors, and the sheer volume of receipts kept many libraries from recording or even knowing what they had received. In 1895 Congress codified all of the printing and distribution laws into one act and merged the two responsibilities under the Government Printing Office. The Superintendent of Documents was moved from the Department of the Interior to GPO where he reported directly to the Public Printer. Public printing itself was consolidated under the Public Printer who assumed responsibility for most of the non-GPO presses that had been acquired by agencies. The law also revised the appropriations procedures for printing, requiring each agency to reimburse GPO for the printing it provided by charging such costs to agency allotments made at the beginning of each year. Three basic changes centralized all document distribution procedures. The first established a sales office in GPO for distribution of government documents to the public, reducing the need for Congressmen to send materials to their constituencies. GPO was also given the authority to receive and distribute surplus documents from executive agencies, centralizing the results of their publishing efforts if not their entire printing activity. Secondly, GPO became totally responsible for the distribution of documents to depository libraries. It was empowered to examine the procedures for handling and servicing documents in these libraries and to establish or change library requirements for becoming a depository. This new role vis-a-vis depository libraries introduced a third innovation into GPO’s programs, the indexing and listing of documents available. The Document Catalog, initiated by the Superintendent of Documents in 1893, would aim to serve as the principal bibliographic tool for government publications, with access to Congressional as well as executive documents by subject, corporate author, and personal author. It was an excellent catalog, comprehensive in both its content and access to those contents. The Monthly Catalog was to be a listing of documents printed that month, with references to their cost and the methods by which they could be obtained. As the Monthly Catalog grew in scope, and the Document Catalog (despite its value to libraries) proved increasingly difficult and expensive to produce, GPO began concentrating its efforts on one and eventually dropped the Document Catalog.4 The Document Index (later called Numerical List and Schedule of Volumes) listed all Congressional reports and documents. In addition, GPO indexed any titles the Joint Committee on Printing deemed appropriate, such as the Congressional Record.

36

SUSAN H. MacDONALD

and CHARLES

F. SIEGER.

JR.

The years that followed witnessed the reorganization of GPO and a streamlining of activities within it. In 1913 Congressional depository designations were stabilized by a law which prohibited Congressmen from changing the designations in their district. ’ Otherwise, printing, distribution and cataloging functions remained fairly stable until World War I when, due to paper shortages, GPO found it necessary to produce its own paper. Progressively less able to cope with demand, GPO resumed its relationship with commercial printers by World War II, as well as referring some printing requests back to the originating executive departments. With the reintroduction of non-GPO printing (both commercial and separate departmental), depository libraries again found that even their current collections were fraught with gaps. In 1946 the Joint Committee on Government Publications of the Association of Research Libraries, the American Library Association, the American Association of Law Libraries, and the Special Libraries Association sponsored the Documents Expediting Project (Dot Ex) with the Library of Congress to make non-GPO documentation available to member libraries.6 Although an annual membership fee was charged for DocEx’s services, this was still less expensive for libraries than soliciting non-GPO publications on their own. However, not all libraries were concerned with a dearth of materials from GPO. The increased volume of GPO printing meant an increase in library receipts which most could not handle. Many libraries did not want or need all of the documents they received, but still did not receive all they wanted. Because of the dispersed nature of government printing, GPO was more apt to distribute what it had printed rather than what libraries necessarily wanted. The Depository Library Act of 1962 attempted to alleviate these problems. Its most significant achievement was to define, for the first time in law, what a public document should be for distribution purposes. Congress defined it as “informational matter printed as an individual document at public expense or as required by law.” Further, Congress stated that: Government publications, except those determined by their issuing components to be required for official use only or for strictly administrative or operational purposes which have no public interest or educational value and publications classified for reasons of national security, shall be made available to depository libraries through the facilities of the Superintendent of Documents for public information. Each component of the Government shall furnish the Superintendent of Documents a list of such publications it issued during the previous month, that were obtained from sources other than the Government Printing Office.7

Thus depository libraries were to have been assured of receiving any documents printed at Government expense that are not confidential or administrative in nature. The 1962 law also established a dual system of depository libraries so that only regional libraries would have to receive everything GPO distributed while selective depositories could decide which categories of documents they wanted to receive. GPO established these categories, or “items, ” in advance so that printing quantities could be determined. Further, GPO was allowed to establish procedures whereby selective depositories could dispose of documents they no longer cared to retain. A five-year retention schedule was established, after which point libraries could ask their regionals for permission to withdraw them. Depository libraries were also allowed to substitute commercially-produced microfacsimile editions for documents received from GPO. This was done in compliance with guidelines established by GPO for administering this microfacsimile substitution in its Depository Instruction Series No. 7 of 1952.’ The regulation allowed substitution for the hard copy when adequate indexes and reading equipment were available along with the microfacsimile. Had the law worked, it would have been a boon to libraries and the public alike. Unfortunately, it did not.

GPO

Micropublishing

IMPLEMENTATION

37

OF THE LAW

Since 1962 depository libraries have been working diligently to realize the law’s potentials. Two inherent contradictions in the law have mitigated against its full realization. In the first place, inadequate service at GPO had indirectly encouraged executive agencies to retain the printing facilities they had set up during and after the war years. Worse, the 1962 law gave the agencies free rein in determining where they wanted their publications printed, be it in-house, at GPO, or at commercial contractors, although it did specify a limit on the number of copies that could be printed in-house. It also established appropriation procedures that supported the independence of the agencies and put GPO in a competitive position for printing vis-a-vis the other alternatives available. In 1968 this independence was furthered by the passage of the Federal Printing Procurement Act which encouraged the use of commercial printing firms under government contract.g In 1969 commercial printers provided 43% of all government printing, and in 1974 their share had increased to 61%. lo Librarians had not balked at the 1962 printing provisions because the distribution requirements still prevailed, regardless of where the printing took place. While it was recognized that it would be difficult to identify government publications that were not printed at GPO, this difficulty would have been overcome had it been in the best interests of the agencies to notify GPO of their document production. Unfortunately, the agencies were also required to underwrite the costs for distributing their non-GPO publications to l,OOO-plus depository libraries. Moreover, the 1962 law did not cover all agency publications and empowered the agencies to exercise independent judgment with regard to what constitutes a public document for distribution. Consequently, it was unreasonable to expect that any administrator would be liberal in his interpretation of the law when it might cost that agency thousands of dollars in distribution costs as a result of declaring the title to be of “educational value.” For library purposes, then, a dual system of public documents emerged. Those documents that were printed at GPO were more likely to get into the distribution stream, while those that were not printed at GPO tended not to be distributed. As agencies became faced with the costs of distributing non-GPO titles to libraries, this distinction broke down. Some found it more economical to have the non-GPO titles that qualified for distribution by GPO also printed by GPO, creating the anomaly of “non-GPO” publications printed at GPO but not technically in the regular depository system. 1’ This was only the beginning of the confusion. TO complicate matters further, a class of documents, the so-called “cooperative publications,” was made practically exempt from distribution through the depository system. These were defined by the Librarian of Congress during the hearings on the proposed 1962 law as falling into two categories: These cooperative publications are sold to the public; they could not otherwise be undertaken. The price usually covers the costs of preparation as well as of printing, and in those cases the publications are plainly fully “self-sustaining.” We fear, however, that questions may be raised about cooperative publications sold to the public at a price that would cover the cost of printing but not the cost of preparation, which may be borne by many agencies or organizations, so many, in fact, that it would not be feasible to try to estimate or recover the cost of preparation. We believe that those who have drafted and considered the several bills of recent years to revise the depository library laws meant to include under “cooperative publications” both of the above types of cooperative publications.12

Although it happens infrequently, cooperative publications can be distributed through the depository system if they are shown by GPO to be of overwhelming public interest or educational value. Obviously, identification of these materials is difficult and time-consuming, as well as being a matter of subjective, hence inconsistent, choice.

38

SUSAN H. MacDONALDand CHARLES F. SIEGER. JR. OTHER FORCES AND VARIABLES

AT WORK

In the meantime, private publishers were becoming increasingly aware of the marketability of documents and the growing difficulty librarians encountered when trying to obtain them. By the late 1950s Readex Microprint obtained and made available in microprint all of the documents indexed in the Monthly Catalog. By the early 1970s there were at least two dozen publishers in the government documents field. These companies expended the time and money libraries could ill afford to identify, collect, and microfilm the documents. They also introduced access tools that greatly improved the level and quality of service librarians could provide. Unfortunately, these labor-intensive products were expensive, and while librarians were delighted with the services the commercial publishers offered, they also became increasingly discontented with the services from GPO. Commercial publishers did more than make documents available to libraries; they brought documents collections and their librarians into the mainstream of library service. Traditionally, librarians have been people who were knowledgeable of their collections and who acted as personal intermediaries between the library user and that collection. Today, this is no longer typical. The exponential growth in collections and the introduction of computers into the library profession have required librarians to add new dimensions to their expertise, activities, and interaction with the public. They must manage large volumes of information in general as well as maintain a familiarity with specialized segments of those collections. Of course, this trend holds true for documents librarians, for whom a second change is also in progress. In earlier times, documents librarians were primarily concerned with the archival aspects of the collection, similar to manuscript or rare book departments. l3 More recently, however, as the government has become more involved in the day to day problems of contemporary society, the publications it generates have become more necessary to solve or at least understand these problems. Architects now make use of climatological data to design their homes, urban planners are concerned with environmental research, and even government officials, such as members of the Corps of Engineers, need census data to prepare environmental impact statements. It is natural then that the current service element in document collections is expanding. Commercial publishers have done much to hasten both changes in librarianship. They have made it possible for librarians and users to access information by subject, in considerable specificity. This information was heretofore hidden in thousands of pages of public testimony or in obscure parts of larger publications. Privately-produced services have also made it possible to obtain copies of these documents with considerable ease, although not without expense. They can also be credited for showing librarians how microforms can solve many of their costly space, maintenance, and processing problems. Some of the documents librarians’ knowledge of microform management can be attributed to the exposure provided by commercial groups.

GPO’s MICROPUBLISHING

EFFORTS

The micropublishing of government documents by the government was probably inevitable, with or without the efforts of commercial groups. By the 1960s the Department of Defense was actively exploring microform potential for much of its documentation. In 1970 Public Printer Spence, who had had previous military experience and was familiar with DOD’s micropublishing efforts, requested permission from the Joint Committee on Printing (JCP) for GPO to get into the microform field.r4 His intention was to distribute government-funded and created documents with the widest possible coverage and at the lowest possible cost, and he received considerable

GPO Micropublishing

39

library support. To assist him in his efforts, Spence created two advisory councils, the Depository Library Council (comprised of librarians, although not all in the documents field) and the Micropublishing Advisory Council (representatives from government and industry). The JCP was not initially receptive to Spence’s arguments, but his position was carried on by Acting Public Printer Humphrey, who argued in 1972 that it was absurd for all other agencies in government to be allowed to publish in microform, but not the principal printer at the Government Printing Office. After encountering difficulties with its initial micropublishing plans, GPO withdrew its original program in 1973 and decided to survey depositories directly and determine their microform needs. In March 1974 depository librarians received a listing of all active depository items and were asked to indicate which items they would prefer to receive in microform. While the response to the survey was positive, and provided support for GPO to continue its arguments before the JCP, it should be noted that many librarians responded in somewhat of a vaccum when composing their answers. For example, neither type nor quality of the microform to be distributed was known at the time either by librarians, or for that matter by GPO itself. GPO was merely trying to determine whether or not there was any interest in microform distribution, and librarians responded accordingly. There was interest. Many librarians thought that the distribution of microform was inevitable and that their role was to indicate preferred categories. It would be difficult to interpret the survey as more. In January 1975 the JCP approved GPO’s microform pilot project. In this project, a microfiche edition of the Code of Federal Regulations was sent to 24 libraries to determine types of problems encountered, to ask for suggestions for improvement, and generally to get library and user reaction to their microforms. ’ 5 Although the pilot proj ect produced many suggestions and comments with regard to fiche format and selection of titles for conversion, it was generally considered a success by all parties involved. In April 1976 depository libraries were told that those who “elect to receive any of the series available on microfiche will get 3rd generation silver halide fiche of archival quality.“’ ’ In July, Public Printer Thomas McCormick submitted the final report, “Test Results, GPO Microform Pilot Project” to the JCP. One year later depositories were informed that the JCP had approved GPO micropublishing program as outlined below. The events leading up to the program’s approval are relatively straightforward but the discussion surrounding these events has been complicated and difficult to follow. The Depository Library Council and Godort (Government Documents Round Table, American Library Association) have had the often unpleasant task of acting as liaison between the library community, commercial publishers and the government. Advisory in their very nature, neither group can approve or deny any plan, although they can and do exercise influence. In February 1975 the Depository Library Council supported GPO’s plans for microfiche conversion, particularly of non-GPO titles. By this time, concern was growing over the increasing number of non-GPO documents that libraries were not receiving and over the ever-increasing space problems facing depository libraries. Microfiche production was the obvious solution to both problems. With microform, more could be distributed to libraries at less cost to the government and with less risk to libraries that were facing space shortages. In February 1977, before GPO’s report was submitted to Congress, the Council officially endorsed GPO’s micropublishing plans.’ 6 On March 25, 1977, the Joint Committee on Printing approved the following two-point GPO micropublishing plan: 1. GPO would receive two copies of every non-GPO document that was of general educational interest and would use one copy for cataloging, the other for microfilming. It would then distribute the microfiche to depository libraries under existing selection categories (or items)

40

SUSAN H. MacDONALD and CHARLES F. SIEGER, JR.

when possible. GPO would not make this microfiche available for sale, nor would it attempt to distribute the hard copy edition to any libraries. However, GPO would also distribute the microfiche edition of those agency publications which were reproduced only in microform. GPO would not be responsible for the filming of these titles which would have been done by the agency prior to GPO’s receipt of the title. GPO would make these available for sale. It was anticipated that only 15 to 20 titles would fall into this category. 2. GPO would convert selected GPO titles to microfiche when it was shown that “substantial economic savings would result” for the government and if conversion of titles was requested by depository librarians. When this occurred, libraries would be given the choice of receiving microfiche or hard copy editions, but could not receive both. Again, the microfiche edition would not be sold by GPO. In May 1977 GPO selected a commercial contractor to produce its microfiche. The contract negotiations resulted in a modification of GPO’s program. It was determined that costs would be substantially lessened by the production and distribution of third generation silver halide microfiche, so a compromise with librarians was reached. Forty-eight regional depository libraries would receive the archival quality, silver halide microfiche while the remaining 1,300 selective depositories would receive diazo, with the option of obtaining additional diazo duplicates from the regionals when their original fiche deteriorated. By October, when the Depository Library Council met again, additional changes or modifications in GPO’s plans were presented. GPO proposed that some depository titles be made available only in microfiche, without offering libraries the option of receiving them in hard copy. GPO also submitted approximately 20 depository titles for the Council to consider converting. Lengthy discussions ensued and gradually tradeoffs were made. Unfortunately, the library community has become aware of GPO developments only belatedly and after considerable argument and debate in the field. The Depository Library Council is aware of this information lag and has urged GPO to notify depositories promptly of new developments. Although GPO is responding, it is still difficult to keep abreast of a continuous evolution in thought and action. In April 1978 the Depository Library Council and GPO met again. Although attendance was excellent, just a fraction of the library community was represented, and only those most directly involved are aware of developments. Nevertheless, the lapse between October and now has afforded librarians time to think and see where the program is going.

A SUGGESTED APPROACH The introduction of microform production into GPO’s printing operations has solved some problems, exacerbated others and created some new ones. The immediate advantages have been stated. GPO microfiche distribution helps librarians receive those non-GPO publications to which they are entitled but which they have had difficulty obtaining in the past. It also helps libraries cope with increasingly severe space shortages. On the other hand, it has diverted attention from the very real limitations in the depository library printing law which deserve examination if a consistent policy toward microform is to be developed. GPO microform production also threatens to eliminate totally the distinctions between GPO and non-GPO printing. This could be beneficial if the distinction really becomes unnecessary. However, until that time it threatens the very foundation on which the JCP approved micropublishing program is laid. As previously noted, many non-GPO titles in hard copy were submitted to GPO for printing and ,distribution but never gained the status of a GPO imprint with ensured depository distribution. The distinction, while not always appreciated by librarians, has at

GPO Micropublishing

41

least facilitated acquisitions procedures and service. Further, unless GPO can guarantee complete distribution of all government documents that fall consistently in the definition of “public interest or educational value,” librarians are going to have to spend more time than they do now ensuring that they receive all they are entitled to. While the Freedom of Information Act provides a legal mechanism to obtain these materials, library budgets tend to prohibit such an investment in time and money. None of these concerns addresses the new problems that arise with bibliographic control and service. Space is not the only cost a depository library must absorb. Far more expensive is the cost of personnel to organize and service a documents collection. Admittedly the library can realize enormous benefits from the receipt of government documents, but the publications are by no means free. From a different perspective, the ideal assumption is that an informed population is fundamental to the maintenance of a free democratic society. Of course, the realization of this ideal requires that the information be made available to the society, and that members of that society take time to read it. The depository library system has been, since its inception, a principal means by which the government has sought to provide information to the public. To implement these ideal assumptions, one must first define information. For the purposes of distribution, PL 87-579 has restricted information to “documents” which are defined as: “informational matter printed as an individual document at public expense or as required by law.” On the horizon, but outside the scope of this paper, is the extremely thorny issue of computer-stored information and other electromagnetically controlled information that is produced at public expense but is not printed in document format. If discussion is restricted to the printed document in hard copy or microfacsimile, three elements are involved. Documents must be printed, collected and distributed. Unfortunately, while Title 44 has seen fit to address the issues of printing and disseminating, however problematic or dispersed these functions might be, it has made “collection” a passive activity for those engaged in the printing and disseminating. In its stead, Title 44, Sec. 1902 allows the issuing components to determine the use of their publications in advance of distribution. The economics of printing and distribution have in the past discouraged the voluntary release or notification of reports to GPO. While micropublishing by GPO will lessen that economic hardship, it does little more than that. The crucial question is how much the government can be relied upon to interpret fairly the definition of a document and to supply the public information to which librarians are entitled. In which segment of society should the functions of oversight be placed, to what extent, and at what cost? If full implementation of the law’s intent is encouraged, with or without changes in agency funding procedures or complete GPO printing responsibility, private enterprise will be discouraged from participating in the public information domain. If this occurs, the library community may be forced to employ full-time lobbyists or watchdogs of the system. If government agencies are not encouraged to live up to their present responsibilities, libraries will be forced to rely increasingly on commercial publishers for government information. If neither extreme is satisfactory a compromise must be reached. To achieve a compromise the entire realm of present government publishing must be thoroughly examined, identifying what is being collected and distributed by government and by industry and what is presently not being made available to the public at all. A formalization of existing informal arrangements could be attempted whereby industry would legally assume responsibility for some collection and printing activity. This could be accomplished through legislation or through government contract. If a formal arrangement is not desirable, librarians should work to ensure that both groups live up to their present informal commitments and urge GPO to concentrate its attention on those publications which are not currently available at all. If GPO, under the direction of the Joint

42

SUSAN H. MacDONALD and CHARLES F. SIEGER. JR.

on Printing, is not able or willing to collect and distribute in the newly identified areas, then these areas will become open to commercial development. It should be recognized that all libraries cannot collect all documents. The present volume of “depository” distribution has made it particularly difficult for regionals to service their collections. Librarians should also seek informal arrangements to collect and service commerciallyproduced documents, possibly encouraging selective depositories to balance the collections of regionals. Library financial reality across the country demands this cooperation. Documents librarians should be more involved in the present national and state plans for an information network, particularly as depository libraries already form a national system of cooperation. However, it is as fragile a system as the entire document collection issue itself. The printing, collection and distribution aspects of information are only the first half of the issue. Once materials have been distributed, they must be received and organized in a way that the public can locate and use the documents. Minimal processing requires the maintenance of a record of receipts (by call number, author/title, or title) and a numbering system to shelve the materials and to match holdings records and actual volumes. If a library relies solely on the Monthly Catalog for subject access, this system can satisfy demands. Yet the more limited public access is to a collection, the less likely users will find what they want on their own. Thus, either users will not find what they want or they will be more dependent on individual librarians to help locate needed information. In the former case the library is not living up to its side of the “information transfer” contract; in the latter the library is paying heavily for personal assistance. Few libraries fall into either extreme, but many undoubtedly waver between the two. This was probably not so true in the past when fewer people desired to use documents and there were fewer documents to use. Since most libraries may be considered ever-increasing warehouses of print (and possibly nonprint) materials, the larger the collection, the more distinguishable or detailed each description of materials in that collection must be. If this rule is not observed, the more difficult it is for the user (or the librarian) to tell like items apart. However, the more distinguishable the access points-be they subject headings or author/title entries-the more complex access to the collection becomes. While complex access tools enable librarians and sophisticated users to identify more precisely needed materials, they do little for the uninitiated user, who must again turn to someone for help. As a result, libraries with larger collections have to pay more both to organize their materials and to service them. Documents librarians, familiar with internal check-in records for their collections, have urged GPO to assist them in bringing documents into the mainstream of library use. GPO has responded admirably to this plea by cataloging documents according to Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (AACR) and incorporating their records into those at Ohio College Library Center (OCLC). While this has been a tremendous help for Libraries (in spite of some resistance to LC subject headings or other peculiarities in the system), the cost of adapting this information for use in local systems is still high. Even minimum charges for the use of OCLC records and staff time to “search and send” on-line, file cards, etc., are still prohibitive for many libraries. Further, the volume of document receipts in many libraries makes selectively cataloging difficult and mitigates against centralized access. Again, the more complex the access system, the more help people will need in using it. Librarians have realized that card catalogs, no matter how refined their subject headings, are nevertheless limited in the access points they can provide. While they help to organize a collection and to give general access to its contents, they cannot begin to provide the in-depth access of periodical and other bibliographic indexes. Until recently, documents librarians did not enjoy the benefits such indexing services could provide. In the last few years, the availability of commercial indexes has qualitatively altered the type of use that documents receive and has allowed users considerably more independence in using document collections. While the indexing services are Committee

GPO Micropublishing

43

expensive, they are often more effective, and in the long term cheaper, than personalized service can be. This is not to deny the knowledge of, or contribution to, use that librarians can and do provide. Rather it is merely to say that the form the contribution takes becomes different. Document librarians are now able to follow more closely their counterparts in being managers of information as well as providing personal access to a collection. The volume of materials we have to handle demands that document librarians make this change. The cost libraries must pay to fulfill their part of the “information transfer” contract with the government is great and is becoming greater. This is true not only in terms of additional indexes that must be purchased but also in terms of the labor-intensive organization and service elements. Collectively, document libraries probably expend many times the budget of GPO to make this information available to the public. Certainly space is a cost factor. However, while it is an extremely visible factor, it falls far short of being an overriding concern. Distribution of non-GPO documentation in microfiche independent of the bibliographic series of which it is a part, or even selective distribution of microfiche according to GPO’s cost considerations, may alleviate some space problems, but it will only increase the organization and service costs for libraries. Further, if the information contained in the fiche is difficult to use (such as is the case with the Code of Federal Regulations), the public, for whom that information was intended, is deprived of its right to know. The distribution criteria proposed by the Depository Library Council in October 1977 are essentially sound.’ ’ They include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

the the the the the

size or bulk of the publication; frequency and type of use; cost savings to libraries (such as in looseleaf services), nature of indexing available; and use of a title in conjunction with other library materials.

The Council also urged GPO to make conversion to microform at a “logical time in the life of a series,” such as at the beginning of a volume year. However, a few modifications are needed. In light of the overall costs to organize and service documents and the overriding demand for library cooperation, space considerations should be given priority equal to the other criteria. Further, the nature of indexing availability should be considered with that of cataloging. If GPO decides to convert a series to microfiche, that series or serial should be analyzed unless it is sufficiently homogeneous in subject content to render such analytics repetitive. An example of a series which might serve as a benchmark (providing it meets other criteria) is the Criminal Victimization Series done by the Justice Department; another example is the legal status of homemakers in various states. The nature of indexing alone is not sufficient. Indexing criteria should distinguish between government and commercially produced indexes in combination with the intended audience of the publication. Foreign Broadcast Information Service’s Translations, for example, are basically research materials that are commercially indexed. Libraries selecting the item should be sufficiently research-oriented to support a sophisticated audience and could therefore be expected to afford a commercial index. FDA Consumer, on the other hand, is widely used by the general public. Even though the title is indexed in the Index to US Government Periodicals, it should not be a candidate for microfiche conversion until internal indexing is provided. Obviously, ail the titles GPO will consider converting will not be as easy to evaluate against the criteria. In light of this fact, GPO should survey depository libraries for response, within a

44

SUSAN H. MacDONALD

and CHARLES

F. SIEGER,

JR.

pre-established and definite time frame, before completing conversion plans. If the number of libraries responding favorably to the fiche is not sufficient to make conversion cost-effective, GPO should discontinue its plans for converting the title at that time. Similarly, if an overwhelming number of libraries request the fiche, it might be possible for GPO to discontinue paper distribution. In all other cases, when the critical thresholds have not been surpassed, both microfiche and hard copy options should remain open for depositories. Further, if such a procedure is accepted, libraries should be notified of the threshold criteria. Serious consideration should be given to the refinement of item categories so that they reflect both format of distribution and source of printing (GPO or non-GPO). Every effort should be made to avoid distributing numbered series or sets in dual formats regardless of printing source. If a series, such as the Ecological Research Series from the Environmental Protection Agency, cannot be obtained by GPO for regular distribution, the GPO segment of that series should be made available to libraries in one item and the non-GPO segment in fiche available in a separate item. Without such selection guidelines, library acquisition and processing procedures will be chaotic. Further, GPO will be the only organization able to determine whether or not it is living up to the microfiche guidelines approved by the Joint Committee on Printing. Without well-defined selection criteria libraries will be unable to anticipate their ability to satisfy user needs through GPO. If a library selects an item of interest in hard copy but finds that a substantial number of titles in that item are only distributed in microfiche the library will be inundated with microfiche it may not be able to service and may not want. As more libraries are faced with the costs of microfiche equipment and cabinets this request will be heard more frequently. Documents are generally considered a difficult collection to access and use. Microfiche distribution can improve use or it can drastically impede it. How the program is implemented will determine its success or failure; the principal criterion for success is that it improve the overall availability of information to the interested and deserving public. REFERENCES 1. Anthony G. Oettinger, Remarks at Roundtable on Privacy and Information Policy, Washington, D.C., Sept. 7-9, 1975, cited in National Commission of Libraries and information Science, National Information Policy (Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office. 1976), p. 11. 2. U.S. Congress. Joint Resolution in Relation to the Public Printing. Resolution No. 25. June 23, 1860. 3. Robert E. Kling, The Government Printing Office (New York: Praeger, 1970), p. 112. 4. Joe Morehead, Introduction to United States Public Documents (Littleton, Colorado: Libraries Unlimited, 1975), p. 80. 5. 38 Stat 75. 6. Alma Mather, “The Documents Expediting Project,” Illinois Libraries 53 (June 1971), 390-393. 7. Public Law 87-579. 8. Leroy C. Schwarzfopf, “Regional Depository Libraries for U.S. Government Publications,” Government Publications Review 2 (1975), 92. 9. Kling, op. cit. 10. Frank Warner, “Government Printing Office: A Very Odd Publishing House,” The Nation 220 (March 22, 1975), 340. 11. Joe Morehead, “The Government Printing Office and Non-GPO Publications,” Government Publications Review 1 (1973), 1-6. 12. U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Rules and Administration, Depository Libraries, Hearings, March 15 & 16, 1962. 13. Bernard M. Fry, “Government Publications and the Library: Implications for Change,” Government Publications Review 4, no. 2, 111-117. 14. U.S. Superintendent of Documents,Public Documents Highlights, no. 3 (April 1974), 1. 15. U.S. Superintendent of Documents, Public Documents Highlights, no. 9 (April 1975), 1. 16. U.S. Superintendent of Documents,Public Documents Highlights, no. 20 (February 1977), 1. 17. Depository Library Council Micrographics Committee Report, in Documents to the People 6, no. 1 (January 1978), 36.