Depository Library Council
Summary, 2000 Fall Meeting

Council Chair Maggie Farrell called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Council members and guests introduced themselves.

The Chair began by stating her goals for the meeting. She hopes for a provocative and productive meeting with the focus kept on what we want the future Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) to look like. This question should be kept uppermost in Council’s minds in discussions, questions from the audience, and Council recommendations.

This is the second or third Council meeting on the "shortened schedule." It has worked well in the past but some discussions have had to be shortened. It is necessary to stay on track as much as possible.

The Chair added that she has a sense of a frustrated mood among the audience because of the issues of electronic transition. She wants to extract as much positive feedback as possible. Since she will be focused on the mechanics of conducting the meeting, she encourages other Council members to speak up when they feel that Council has heard enough on a particular issue to get a sense of the group, and that we need to move on to other issues.

Council’s job is to listen, encourage open dialog with participants, and foster feedback about ideas on where the program should be heading.

There was some discussion about the impact of the Superintendent of Documents letter to depository library directors and the subsequent mood of the audience. The letter has made it clear that the electronic transition is really going to happen. Sharon Hogan mentioned that some directors have put together task forces to study the future of government information in their libraries. This can have profound impacts on the jobs of the people attending the conference.

The Chair recommends that Council members try to meet new attendees (160 at this meeting, or about 50 more than usual). In addition to welcoming them to the meeting, Council needs to be thinking about its recommendations for five new members who will be appointed next year. Some things to think about are special libraries (including law libraries), potential members representing minorities, and the possibility of a member or members with special needs (including a handicapping condition).

The Public Printer said that his focus at the October 23 Council Plenary Session will be to suggest that it is time to hear from the community about their views on the program and how they want it shaped.

At the direction of Congress, the General Accounting Office will be doing a study of the transfer of the FDLP to the Library of Congress. The person doing the study will probably be attending the Council meeting. One of his questions is "Does the FDLP need to exist at all, given the state of electronic information?" The Public Printer hopes that Council deliberations and audience participation will answer this question. Only the depository library community can determine if the program is worthwhile to them.

Members of the Joint Committee on Printing staff have also been invited to attend.

The current appropriations process is not yet over. The bill has gone to the President, who had not signed it as of Friday, October 20. GPO has been funded by continuing resolution at the FY 2000 level of funding which goes through the end of the week of October 27. When the President signs the appropriations bill, GPO will have the reduced appropriation passed by Congress.

Andrew Sherman of GPO will talk in detail about the appropriations process at the Council Plenary Session on October 23. Highlights include the attempt by the House to eliminate paper distribution entirely, the predetermined result of the study directed to be conducted by the General Accounting Office, ("tell us how the program can be transferred to the Library of Congress"), and the ultimate acceptance of the Conference Committee report. The appropriation for the coming fiscal year will be $27.9 million (reduced from $30 million this year).

Leadership in the Government Printing Office will be affected by the upcoming Presidential election. The Public Printer serves at the pleasure of the President. An appointment by the new President will probably occur in the spring.

There is also a study of the closure of the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) being undertaken by the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS). There is some overlap between this and the GAO study which is looking at both GPO and NTIS. The NCLIS study is due to Congress on December 15; the GAO study deadline is March 15, 2001.

The Superintendent of Documents will speak to the October 23 Plenary Council session after Andrew Sherman reports on the appropriations process. Mr. Buckley will report on what will be done to live within the appropriations.

Congress has directed a more electronic FDLP in order to save money. GPO hasn’t yet been able to quantify exactly how much money will be saved. During the transition, GPO will be looking for equivalent online publications instead of riding requisitions for more print copies. They are developing criteria for decisions that they are making. The bottom line is to keep information available to the public.

GPO wants feedback on their proposals and ideas. But it is not productive to try to go back to the program as it was before the budget cuts—the money is not there. And it is not just an appropriations matter—there is a general direction from Congress to go to an electronic program.

GPO is looking for what to do that works for everybody.

Mr. Buckley also mentioned FirstGov. The creators are looking for constructive criticism and help with making a better product. Despite some claims to the contrary, Firstgov does not supersede and replace GPO efforts. FirstGov is a broad-based product and not equivalent to all the cataloging that GPO does.

He also mentioned Government in a Digital Age, a new study by the Computer and Communications Association. The industry is very interested in opportunities to make money in this environment. By contrast, the depository library community speaks for public access. Librarians recognize and speak up for the private sector access and the right to increase value of government products, but do not support only fee-based access to government information.

Mr. Buckley mentioned that not all information products are available electronically.

GPO will have a chance to comment on the draft GAO study. There may never be a final version. GAO has a second letter from the House Appropriations Committee requesting further study of NTIS.

Judy Russell of NCLIS will be speaking at tomorrow’s plenary session and there will be an opportunity to ask her what happens after the NCLIS report is released.

Council identified a possible action item for a Task Force to look at the NCLIS report when it is released.

Maggie Farrell asked if GPO would like Council to look at the GAO report. GPO replied that access to the text might be restricted before the report is released to Congress. But GPO hopes that Council talks to the GAO people.

There was a comment from the audience that the proposed all-electronic FDLP has a profound impact on public libraries. A large segment of their patrons are not computer literate and can’t get information. Will public libraries have to add staff to provide this? There is a difference between academic and public libraries.

Mr. Buckley noted the irony in the fact that some publications, e.g., Social Security publications, are being produced in print by the agencies because they want to communicate to the public. But GPO can’t get the money to distribute these publications to the very audience that the agencies want to reach. As an example, GPO is printing "Where to Write for Vital Records" for their sales catalogs.

Public Printer DiMario stressed that the depository library community must inform agencies of our concerns. It is good to talk to the GAO person conducting the study, but we need to go beyond that.

Maggie Farrell announced that the reports should cover activities done, what the committees hope to accomplish at the Council meeting here, and potential action items or commendations.

Chair Donna Koepp reported on behalf of members Cathy Hartman, John Stevenson, and Mary Redmond. Former member Greg Lawrence has continued to share his experiences over the summer, and Ms. Koepp has consulted with other people. She identified two goals:

1. Raise awareness of the government documents community about the importance of preservation and seek a dialog to clarify issues. She believes the best way to do this is to tap experience to get ideas.
2. Make people aware of technological answers as efficient and affordable. There is a need to develop an understanding of electronic methods and it is necessary to advise GPO of this direction.

John Stevenson is the Preservation Committee liaison to the Permanent Public Access (PPA) Working Group. The Preservation Committee believes the PPA Working Group’s efforts to be important for the preservation of government information.

Ms. Koepp anticipates action plans coming out.

The Partnership Working Group meets Tuesday, October 24, 2000 at 11:00 a.m. There is no report yet. Donna Koepp and Cathy Hartman are members, and new Council member Greta Marlatt has also expressed an interest in being on the Group.

Committee Chair Linda Frederick said that the committee needs focus from the group on which way to go for action items.

There is a question about what workflow for FDLP operations means for everyone working on this. It is impossible to separate operations from the Cataloging/Locator Committee headed by Andrea Sevetson. That is our "shelflist."

The Online Public Access Catalog (OPAC), cataloging and PURLs are important. Identification of electronic products and publications and how to get at them is another issue, as is the core list of titles in the FDLP and the format for them.

She also mentioned special collections on the web and cooperative things going on. Communication with libraries and GPO is important to know what is going on.

Old business: Congressional bills in microfiche have been discontinued, Decennial Census products issued has been resolved (publications will come out in the format the Census Bureau decides), the draft SOD policy (Operations Committee seems the best place to land in or should it be a Committee of the Whole discussion?). The draft SOD has been posted on GOVDOC-L and is also available for all attendees at this conference.

Bob Hinton is Chair. Linda Frederick and Diane Garner are members, and Paula Kaczmarek has expressed an interest in joining.

Creation of this group arose out of Proposal 3: "Revise the ‘Depository Library Public Service Guidelines for Government Information in Electronic Formats’ to Establish a Service Requirement for Tangible Electronic Products" (April 2000). Given the GPO response, the Group will continue.

A core list of 15 documents has been identified, including Instructions to Depository Libraries, Internet Public Access policy, etc. (basically all electronic formats). Information will be gleaned from these to point toward core competencies. The Work Group is working on the list from what has been identified so far.

By end of this conference there will either be recommendations or a firm action plan. Issues are:

1. E-competencies
2. Recommendations or requirements?
3. Just public service or technical services/support staff?
4. Implications of rollover specifications becoming minimum standards and any e-competencies needed.
5. Circumstances—various depository scopes, sizes, etc.
6. Impact on self studies and inspections
7. Other competencies and how they relate to e-competencies

Paula Kaczmarek asked if these were competencies for librarians or libraries. The reply was that the focus seems to have been on staff. But Ms. Kaczmarek wonders about the focus and impact on libraries as institutions.

For the focus, it might be good to go back to Proposal 3.

The Core E-Competencies Work Group will meet Tuesday, October 24 at 11:00 a.m.

Mary Redmond chairs this Work Group. Pauline Kaczmarek and Debbie Madsen (Kansas State University) have also worked on this project.

Depository librarians have been asked by their administrations for replacement costs of depository materials in case of disaster. Council wants to gather and make available information on this question.

Ms. Redmond distributed copies of a study prepared by Michael Cotter of East Carolina University. Figures need to be updated but the methodology is a good one. A request for information posted to GOVDOC-L did not yield much more information. Ms. Kaczmarek will supply additional information from her files. The revised material will be posted on the Depository Library Council Web site.

Andrea Sevetson chairs this committee. Other members are Dena Hutto, Arlene Weible, George Carlson, John Stevenson, Julia Wallace, Nan Myers, Tim Byrne, and Maggie Farrell.

The Committee has been talking about goals. Dena Hutto put out the committee goals and more things to study.

Sharon Hogan and Fred Wood are committee members. Their job is to "watch and look."

There was some discussion of commendations for GPO’s partnership with the National Library of Medicine for permanent access to some publications, the new PubScience search engine which can search across multiple databases, a comment that FirstGov should think about what they don’t have yet, how GPO should work with FirstGov (not a GPO product but if it goes through GPO should work with it). There was a comment that GPO offered the opportunity to take GPO Access and rename it, but the offer was not accepted.

John Stevenson is Council’s liaison to the Permanent Public Access Working Group because of his interest in preservation and his close proximity to Washington, DC. He attended the June 19 PPA Working Group meeting and has informed Council by e-mail.

The PPA Working Group has enhanced agencies’ ability to create memos of understanding.

The next PPA Working Group meeting is scheduled for the afternoon of November 2.

Francis Buckley added that GPO has put up a Web site (http://www.gpo.gov/ppa/), and is posting minutes from PPA Working Group meetings to get people involved and agencies to come together. The PPA Working Group is a springboard for many projects and the sharing of information. In addition to agencies and Congressional committees, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has been invited to attend but there has been no response to date.

Paula Kaczmarek is in charge of this project. She took the manual that Diane Garner had produced in order to put in more editorial comment. She did not have the opportunity to do this, but has brought copies of the manual to this meeting.

She needs to send a message to GPO staff member Joe Paskoski about the update of the Council pages.

Her new e-mail address is paula5201@hotmail.com.

Fred Wood said that work needs to be done to state a framework on why there needs to be a depository program. Andrea Sevetson replied that the book Fulfilling Madison’s Vision and various fact sheets were intended for that purpose. They need constant updating.

Mr. Wood thinks that Council has to take a role in this, and that the concerns need to be conveyed to GPO, GAO, and wherever else would be appropriate. This might be a proposal for an action item.

Maggie Farrell asked Council to read the draft SOD policy which was sent ahead of the meeting. Council will discuss on Monday, October 23 at 3:50 p.m. in the working session.

There was a review of the LPS Fiscal Year 2000 annual report to Council.

Andrea Sevetson has marked several possible commendations in the annual report.

There was a question about a commendation for the fixing of the problem with the boxes arriving. Other suggestions for commendations were the FDLP Desktop, New Electronic Titles, and the U.S. Institute of Peace (GPO says this is still in process).

Andrea Sevetson mentioned that the bottom of pages "Mail to" in GPO Access are not always the places to which she would send comments. She requested a review in GPO of statements at the bottom of their pages. T.C. Evans replied that the comment she had mentioned was forwarded to the proper place.

Paula Kaczmarek noted that in September GPO received 42 notifications about fugitive documents from GPO’s SPA (Simplified Purchase Agreement) partners. The SPA process provides streamlined procurement procedures for Federal agencies to acquire printing and information products and services up to $2,500 in value from local commercial sources in one month. The number of notifications is very impressive. She recommended monitoring this until April with the possibility of a commendation if the situation continues.

Someone asked if there has ever been a commendation about the Conference which runs concurrently with the Council meeting. The reply was that there has not.

Paula Kaczmarek had a question on LPS Outreach (page 8 of the annual report). She suggests more templates and downloads of materials for depository librarians. Given the electronic atmosphere, might there be more of this nature for end users?

Sheila McGarr says LPS needs to have more public relations material printed before opening it up. Stock would be exhausted if it were opened up now.

New handouts for Ben’s Guide Web site are at the printer. They are very colorful.

There is also an impressive list of places where LPS staff have spoken about the FDLP.

Audience member Earl Shumaker suggested more contacts with service clubs in the community, e.g., League of Women Voters.

John Stevenson suggested a variety of formats for public relations material (PDF, text, etc.). Ms. Kaczmarek said that text is more flexible for her and she can customize it for her library.

Francis Buckley said that staff from the Office of Electronic Information Dissemination Services have prepared an article on GPO Access. If it is text file, we can use and edit. Mr. Evans has a section on the Federal Bulletin Board in multiple formats.

Recommendation 2. GPO Access Gateways. Paula Kaczmarek said that there is a problem with telnet numbers for GPO Access Gateways. They are hard to find. The user has to go through twelve pages in order to get to the list. T.C. Evans of GPO said he thought that had been changed. Ms. Kaczmarek and Mr. Evans will get together and investigate this.

Recommendation 4. 2000 Census Products. Former Council member Julia Wallace had a concern about the availability of Census products in paper. Gil Baldwin said that the Census Bureau might not have as many choices as we might think. Paula Kaczmarek and Donna Koepp will look into this and see if more can be done to help communicate the need for Census products.

Recommendation 6. Electronic Transition. Fred Wood suggested revisiting this in light of issues on the whole question of the need for a Federal Depository Library Program.

Recommendation 7. Cataloging/Locator Services. John Stevenson asked if the online Catalog of U.S. Government Publications could be substituted for the printed version. Sheila McGarr responded that a printed catalog is required in law (Title 44, section 1710, 1711).

Recommendation 9. Congressional Bills. These are no longer going to be available in microfiche format. There was discussion of the "official" status of the online product. GPO should go through whatever necessary steps (as they do for the Congressional Record) to be able to state the official nature of this version. Francis Buckley said that there is a difference between this and the Federal Register/Code of Federal Regulations situation because there is a FR/CFR Advisory Committee which can declare something to be official.

Andrea Sevetson expressed the concern that librarians will be "hassled" because there is no statement saying that electronic Congressional bills are official. She suggested some language along the lines of "Electronic bills are produced from the same source files as the official printed versions." Officers of the court, etc. will be able to point such a statement. The statement would also take librarians "off the hook."

Maybe GPO should work with other agencies on authentic versions of the agencies’ information. There is concern about users being assured that electronic information is the same as what they would get in paper at depositories or by writing to the agency, e.g., the Social Security Administration.

Francis Buckley stated that GPO works to be sure that the electronic version is comprehensive and complete. If not, GPO will ride the print requisition.

A possible recommendation might come out of this.

The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.

Council members present: Maggie Farrell (Chair), Charlene C. Cain, Linda Fredericks, Cathy Nelson Hartman, Robert A. Hinton, Sharon A. Hogan, Dena Hutto, Paula Kaczmarek, Donna P. Koepp, Greta E. Marlatt, Mary Redmond, Andrea Sevetson, John A. Stevenson, Fred B. Wood

Sheila McGarr, Chief of the Library Division at the Library Programs Service (LPS) and Program Coordinator, welcomed a record setting crowd of more than 520. She noted that 160 were attending for the first time, up form 117 new attendees in 1999. Honors for the longest distance traveled go to librarians from Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Guam. The audience also includes 24 former Council members.

Maggie Farrell, Council Chair, called the meeting of the Depository Library Council to order. She explained that Council serves at the discretion of the Public Printer, advises on depository library matters, and assists the Government Printing Office (GPO) in the direction of the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP).

Ms. Farrell noted that this is a critical juncture for the program. There is a dichotomy of increased access to electronic information but also the erecting of barriers by technology. There is also the question of long term permanent access to government information which needs to be considered.

Council focuses on the FDLP future and the direction we want the program to take. Council looks forward to audience insights and comments. Council meetings are open and audience participation is welcome.

Council members then introduced themselves and mentioned the names of committees that they chair. At Ms. Farrell’s request, Council member Robert A. Hinton presented an overview of Council’s working session of the night before.

Public Printer Michael DiMario welcomed the audience and thanked them for their support during the recent GPO appropriation process. He explained that Andrew M. Sherman (Director, Congressional, Legislative and Public Affairs) would cover that topic in more detail during his remarks.

Mr. DiMario was named Acting Public Printer on February 19, 1993 and confirmed in November of that year. He pointed out that the Public Printer’s term ends after the Presidential election, and it is the prerogative of a new President to appoint his own team.

Mr. DiMario thanked the audience for their support and mentioned that a great deal had been accomplished during his term of office, beginning with the signing of the GPO Access law in June 1993. This was an early attempt to provide public access to electronic government information.

GPO Access has proven to be immensely successful, with huge numbers of downloads. Congress apparently looked with favor on this product, especially as a means of reducing the cost of paper products and paper distribution. Some agencies used electronic methods to accelerate the reduction of paper products even when paper is the preferred format.

Congress then directed GPO to transition to an electronic depository program, and GPO worked toward a seven-year time frame. That trend has continued.

During the Year 2000 Congressional session, the House Appropriations Committee eliminated paper distribution entirely in favor of a fully electronic FDLP. The final legislation was somewhat modified but the Conference Committee report did include a provision requesting the General Accounting Office (GAO) to study the FDLP and tell how it should be transferred to the Library of Congress (LC). The GAO investigator assigned to this study has also asked if there even needs to be an FDLP given the status of electronics.

Because of that focus and National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) study of the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) closure issue (also being examined by GAO), the Public Printer is asking Council to focus on 1) do we need the FDLP? and 2) if so, what should the program look like? If the audience believes the program has a future, they should tell Council, the Public Printer, and the GAO investigator.

Many in the depository library community have focused on the reduction of GPO appropriations. But we face a greater challenge than that. This is a great opportunity to bring issues to the community.

(See Administrative Notes, v. 21, #15, 11/15/00)

(See Administrative Notes, v. 21, #15, 11/15/00)

(See Administrative Notes, v. 21, #15, 11/15/00)

(See Administrative Notes, v. 21, #15, 11/15/00)

Bert Chapman, Purdue University, said that the GPO budget and the letter to depository library directors are of acute concern. Eighty depository library community members met the previous evening and identified areas of concern, including electronic source files and tangible products.

Elizabeth Cowell, University of California at San Diego (UCSD), expressed great support for the program and protection of the public’s right to know. She requested that Council consider a recommendation on making electronic source files available for selection as depository items.

Michele McKnelly, University of Wisconsin at River Falls, recommended that GPO continue to work on systems for cataloging and locator systems.

Sue Lyons, Rutgers Law Library (Newark), expressed the need for continuing some items in paper, e.g., those of enduring historical, legal, or cultural value. She would like to see such items added to the core list. GPO should continue to make a minimum number of copies in paper to ensure permanent public access.

Karrie Peterson, UCSD, said that all in attendance are responsible for the plan. She urged Council to reject the proposed plan, and encouraged the FDLP community to "send a message" to Congress and to fight for the program we have.

Cindi Wolff, Louisiana State University, reminded the audience that an earlier SOD policy document (#13) changed from its original version. We don’t know who will be reviewing or enforcing provisions of the new proposal. She urged an examination of SOD #13 to see what has not been enforced.

Hays Butler, Rutgers Law Library (Camden) asked about the prospects for GPO distribution of the 2000 U.S. Code in paper and electronically. Francis Buckley replied that, absent a budget prohibition, GPO plans to distribute in both formats and has budgeted accordingly.

Diane Eidelman, Suffolk Cooperative Library System, asked for background on archiving of Federal agency Web sites. Gil Baldwin replied that there are several very successful partnerships with agencies, including the National Library of Medicine and the Department of Energy. These are positive outcomes of the meetings on Permanent Public Access (PPA). The Department of Energy, for example, has PPA built into its agreement with GPO. There is also work in progress on an agreement with the Census Bureau that Mr. Baldwin thinks the FDLP community will like.

Denise Davis, NCLIS (stating her own view) reminded the audience that libraries have connections to their legislators, and need to persuade their public officials that access to government information is important. There are issues connected with formats which make access difficult or impossible, for example, file size. The private sector is looking at formats, seeing sales opportunities, and is working with their legislators. The FDLP community needs to do the same, i.e., to communicate with their legislators.

Andrew Sherman, GPO, commented that Congress has expressed its intent for a move to an electronic system through the appropriation that they have authorized for GPO. The agency has to live within its budget.

Susan Tulis, former Council member and 20-year depository librarian, added that GPO has done an admirable job with available resources, and hard choices need to be made. The audience should offer a substitute plan rather than simply recommending rejection of the proposal. All of us have to be contact with our representatives about GPO and to show them the impact of the cuts.

Jim Jacobs, UCSD, expressed concern about the proposed plan’s recommendation of setting up a new system for partnerships between GPO and agencies to assure continued access to electronic products. He pointed out that the current system goes back 140 years, and there are 1300 "partners" already in the FDLP.

Council member Linda Fredericks asked if Mr. Jacobs was suggesting that the FDLP be used as a distribution medium for electronic products. Is he asking for distribution in print or should depositories take on electronic versions? He replied that he favors distribution of electronic versions to depositories rather than having single copies at GPO and at agency partners. He doesn’t object to other partners but doesn’t want old "partners" to be left out.

Council member Paula Kaczmarek asked if current partners are depository libraries. Council member Sharon Hogan added that her library (University of Illinois at Chicago) has already entered into a partnership for access to some electronic information.

Mr. Jacobs said that the language regarding partnerships states that a partner may or may not be a depository library. He added that there have been many FDLP transitions in the past (paper, microfiche, floppy diskettes, CD-ROMs, etc), but the plan proposed by GPO doesn’t specifically call for using the depository system for partnerships.

Superintendent of Documents Francis Buckley commented that this is not a brand new plan, but one that GPO has been implementing for the last two years. GPO had called for partnerships with libraries which could handle them. Based on feedback saying that not all libraries are ready for this, GPO has been exploring other partnerships. This version of the plan will be used to implement budget cuts.

Council member Andrea Sevetson asked if copies of GPO Access files are being sent to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

Mr. Buckley responded that NARA is not accepting most electronic files (including CD-ROMs). All agencies must keep these files until NARA decides if NARA will take the files.

Ms. Sevetson said that she worries about the possible disappearance of files on agency sites. She mentioned the recent example of the World Fact Book as a case in point. She asked if GPO is permitted to distribute electronic files which it receives from agencies for printing to depository libraries.

Mr. Buckley responded that most publications for printing are received in camera ready copy because it is cheaper that way. Fewer than 20% are received electronically. Even if GPO gets an electronic file, the file can be changed. GPO would need a print copy to review to see if there have been changes.

Ms. Sevetson mentioned that 25% more files are being changed to electronic availability only.

Mr. Buckley said that GPO is copying digital files into a digital archive to preserve in case the agency digitizing the copy disappears. These are things unique to an electronic format.

Ms.Sevetson said she thought if the electronic file disappeared, GPO had to get in touch with the agency to get the file.

Jim Jacobs, UCSD, commented that he realizes this is not a new issue but hopes it will be possible to change and to make electronic information available to depository libraries. GPO Access is great but he hopes it won’t "go away." He feels it is better to use depositories.

Barbie Selby, University of Virginia Law Library, mentioned that the Library of Congress Millennium Study has been charged to report on permanent access to information. She asked if GPO and LC have worked together on that issue.

Mr. Buckley replied that formal discussions have taken place, and they are building bridges at PPA meetings. GPO has had a long term relationship with LC in cataloging.

LC had asked for a review of its digital programs which led to the Digital 21 report. Now LC wants to take action responding to the issues raised in the report.

GPO provides Congressional Record and Congressional Bill files so LC can mount them on the Thomas system. LC has the same issues of permanent access to electronic government information as GPO does.

Tim Byrne, University of Colorado, said that the current FDLP is not the best it could be but it’s the best we can get with the money provided. He believes it will be impossible for GPO to get partnerships, etc., without libraries. Electronic source files need to be distributed to depositories.

Karrie Peterson, UCSD, asked where people can get started to come up with another plan. She will be happy to work on an alternative.

Cindi Wolff, Louisiana State University, remarked that nothing has happened with respect to the records schedule from NARA for non-tangible products. She asked Council to follow up on this.

(See Proceedings of the 9^th Annual Federal Depository Library Conference. Washington, U.S. GPO, 2001)

The Plenary session was adjourned at 12:00 noon.

John A. Hearty, Director, Business Development Division, OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc., spoke to Council about the GPO/OCLC Electronic Archiving Project. OCLC has been working with GPO over the last year. They are aiming for a rollout of a pilot project in three to six months. The total project will take four or five years.

Questions of cost will be dealt with later as more facts are known. GPO’s needs are not unique; there are other library issues. GPO hopes that enough people will use the same system so that burdens of cost structure can be shared. There was further discussion on issues of long-term access, spatial/cartographic data, and other formats.

Andrea Sevetson, Chair of the Cataloging/Locator Committee, led the discussion.

Among the issues covered were bibliographic information at the piece level, metadata cataloging standards and what role GPO should play in setting them, the future of cataloging in this transitional time (fear that some see cataloging tied to paper products and not needed for electronic products), size of GPO cataloging workforce and workload/priorities, integration of government information with other types of information, "discovery" of Web-based electronic resources, updating of older cataloging information, cataloging partnerships and cooperative cataloging, URLs and PURLs.

Before beginning the review of the draft GPO policy, Chair Maggie Farrell asked for Council’s opinion on this morning’s recommendation from the audience not to accept the policy. It was the sense of Council that the policy should be examined, then evaluated.

Council reviewed each section of the document, with discussions on wording of various provisions. At the end of the review, Maggie Farrell asked for Council’s general "feel" for the policy and if Council was prepared to approve it. Council felt it could recommend that GPO go forward with the policy but that a comment period for the FDLP community should be requested. Superintendent of Documents Francis Buckley said that GPO is not moving to implement the policy immediately but cannot wait a long time for comments.

There were audience comments on issues of distribution of source files to depository libraries and of the value of having some paper copies of documents in depository libraries. Discussion ensued about how much money will be saved by the policy, and what the costs would be for printing fifty copies (for Regionals) of the approximately 30% of titles not available to depositories in paper.

The session adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

New Council members were escorted to GPO for a tour and orientation during the morning.

The remaining members began discussions of the future of the FDLP in the digital library. The purpose of the discussion was to focus on what aspects of the program are most important to keep.

Issues covered included government’s responsibility to make information available in perpetuity to all who want it, the role of the private sector, concepts of "dissemination" and "selection" in an electronic environment, finding tools for identification of government information, authentication of sources, legal requirements of Monthly Catalog contents (everything issued, not published—not based on FDLP), bibliographic control of scientific/technical information, Permanent Public Access (PPA), completion of superseded lists, GPO workflows, and PURL assignments.

Superintendent of Documents Francis Buckley said that even in the most draconian scenario both GPO Access and the cataloging/indexing program would be funded.

Council Chair Maggie Farrell said that she envisioned the discussion points being synthesized into a two-page (maximum) letter to the Public Printer. She asked Sharon Hogan and Fred Wood to work together on an outline for Committee of the Whole discussion this afternoon.

Council then broke into committees, subcommittees, and work groups to discuss issues and identify topics for further discussion and/or action.

Council recessed for lunch at 12:00 noon.

After reconvening at 2:00 p.m., the following committee reports were given:

Cataloging/Locator Committee. Andrea Sevetson reported that the Committee will have two recommendations: 1) a request for articulation by GPO of cataloging priorities and 2) PURL search enhancements.

Operations Committee. Linda Fredericks said her committee talked about the draft SOD. They recommend that GPO go forward with the statement along with the edits discussed by Council (refining some definitions, clarifications to various points). Other ideas, e.g., Instructions to Depository Libraries, can be deferred for a while. The Committee did not discuss NARA retention schedules.

Preservation Committee. Donna Koepp said that the committee is leaning toward two recommendations: 1) that FDLP work out best practices for preservation and methods for cost, and 2) that a group of volunteers keep track of documents by checking Web sites.

Communication Committee. Sharon Hogan identified one recommendation (full engagement in emerging new activities like FirstGov) and one commendation (National Library of Medicine partnership with GPO).

Core E-Competencies Work Group. Bob Hinton said his group has put together a short list of some core E-competencies and will try for more. This will be an ongoing action item between now and spring of 2001.

Value of a Depository Collection Work Group. Mary Redmond and Paula Kaczmarek will pool the information they have collected. They will review the action items from last April.

Council decided to eliminate NARA schedules from its "to do" list. NARA and GPO are continuing to discuss this topic.

Council continued discussions on the letter to be sent to the Public Printer about the general direction and future of the FDLP in the digital library age.

This letter will try to articulate a new vision of the FDLP, to build from the ground up. It will identify what libraries will need to select and disseminate government information. Finding tools, cataloging, indexing/abstracting, preservation, permanent public access, authenticity/security, and redundancy are examples of needs that libraries have for GPO to supply to the FDLP. The letter should also address the role of libraries in the new program.

Linda Fredericks led the discussion of the draft SOD policy from the morning session. There was discussion of edits/clarifications of text in several sections.

The FDLP community should have the option to comment on the proposed list of essential titles (to be supplied in paper). Andrea Sevetson suggested a deadline of not more than two weeks from now for comments and/or additions to the list. Laurie Hall of GPO agreed to be the contact person for comments on the list from the FDLP community. Linda Fredericks will post a notice to GOVDOC-L directing that comments be sent to Laurie Hall.

After a lengthy discussion about distribution of source files to depository libraries, Council decided to incorporate a reference to source files in the rationale of the recommendation on Permanent Public Access.

Council reviewed the suggestions for recommendations, commendations, and action items, and assigned responsibilities for each before recessing at 5:00 p.m.

EVENING WORKING SESSION

Council reconvened at 7:00 p.m. to draft recommendations, commendations, and action items.

Council reviewed the draft recommendations, commendations, and action items. A revised draft was produced for the afternoon Plenary Session.

Mary Redmond nominated Andrea Sevetson as Incoming Council Chair. Greta Marlatt seconded the nomination. Ms. Sevetson was elected by acclamation.

Council committees and Chairs for the forthcoming year will be as follows:

Preservation, Donna Koepp

Operations, Linda Fredericks

Cataloging/Locator, Dena Hutto

Communications, Sharon Hall

Work Groups (not part of committees):

Cost and Value of Depository Collections, Mary Redmond

Core E-Competencies, Robert Hinton

Council recessed at 12:00 noon.

Council Chair Maggie Farrell welcomed the audience to the final session of the fall 2000 Council meeting. She noted that it was a busy session for Council, and that they accomplished a lot in a short time.

She added that Council appreciates the audience input, especially at the Monday planning session, written comments, discussions with individual members, and attendance at Council working sessions. She appreciates the dedication to the FDLP and to the work of democracy.

Acknowledgement of GPO Staff

Council decided to use the money donated at the meeting to buy flowers for Conference Coordinator Sheila McGarr, Council contact Willie Thompson, and all present GPO staff members in appreciation for all their work on behalf of the program.

Council member Charlene Cain announced the recent death of Veronica MacLay of the Hastings College of Law Library, former Chair of the Government Documents Interest Group of the American Association of Law Libraries. Ms. Cain invited those present to sign their names to sheets which will be inserted into a card to be sent to Ms. MacLay’s family.

Andrea Sevetson reported that Marty Mehlberg of GPO died this week. He had been instrumental in GPO Access. Council members have signed a card for his family.

Maggie Farrell explained that Council recommendations, commendations, and action items would be read through in their entirety in order to let the audience see Council’s work in its entirety. There will be a chance for audience comments after this initial reading. The drafts will be finalized and printed in Administrative Notes.

Council members have agreed to take responsibility to act as lead persons for each recommendation, commendation, and action item. They proceeded to read the text and (where applicable) rationales for each. (See Administrative Notes, vol. 21, #16, Dec. 15, 2000, pp. 3-7, for texts of recommendations, commendations, action items, and rationales.

Maggie Farrell then invited comments from the audience on each of the recommendations, commendations, and action items. They were as follows:

Recommendation 4. Permanent Public Access. Bert Chapman of Purdue University asked if there had been Council discussion on GPO providing depository libraries with source files. Donna Koepp said that source files were included in the list of documents in the rationale.

Ellen Sweet, National Library of Education, recommended that Council encourage the two work groups (on Permanent Public Access and on fugitive documents) to talk to each other. Donna Koepp said that was the intention of Council and noted that both of these recommendations came from the Preservation Committee.

Sheila McGarr, GPO, mentioned that the next Administrative Notes will be published on November 15 and suggested that Council might want to change the deadline for comments on the core list. Linda Fredericks replied that Council knows GPO has to move forward and wanted the opportunity for public input. Maggie Farrell said that Council does not see this as a static list and it could change as technology changes. Council’s feeling is that GPO would be open to change the list as necessary.

Andrea Sevetson added that if the list is not produced right away, it might not happen. She reminded the audience that the suggestions for titles will not go to Council, but directly to Laurie Hall at GPO.

Sheila McGarr asked who would let the depository library community know about the request for suggestions to Laurie Hall. Council will post a notice to GOVDOC-L.

Ellen Sweet asked for a short extension (a week to ten days) to allow adequate time for comment. Council noted her suggestion and said members would discuss it. (Note: Council later decided to extend the deadline to November 10 instead of November 7).

Recommendation 7. Fugitive Online Products. Karen Nordgren, Emporia State University, asked how Council will go about putting the groups together (volunteers or other mechanisms). Cathy Hartman replied that GPO will establish a working group for fugitive online products but thinks that other people can volunteer if they are interested.

Coleen Parmer, Bowling Green State University, asked if by implication Recommendation 7 also covers materials "going away" from public access, e.g., proprietary software, agency changes, etc. Cathy Hartman replied that Council had not directly discussed those resources. Council was specifically addressing those posted to the Web, not sent to depositories, and taken down by agencies, leaving no public access.

Donna Koepp added that this question is a slightly different issue which should be considered but can’t be considered under this recommendation. Council member Fred Wood hopes that Council takes this issue up as soon as possible.

Commendation 3. Jim Veatch, LibraryHQ.com (Nashville) said that he would like to add the attendees’ appreciation to Sheila McGarr and Willie Thompson.

Action Item 2. Value of Depository Library Collection. Ramona Reno, Nevada State Library, asked if this was connected to what happens when depositories decide to drop their FDLP status. Mary Redmond replied that it was an insurance-related question related to the cost of replacing a depository collection in the event of a natural or man-made disaster.

Action Item 3. Maggie Farrell explained that the letter to the Public Printer on the future outline of the FDLP was too long to compose in the short time of a Council meeting but was not conceived as a lengthy white paper.

Lori Smith of Southeastern Louisiana University asked if there was a group looking at statistics and giving guidance to depository libraries on what statistics they should be keeping, including hits on their depository Web pages. Sharon Hogan replied that this was not within the scope of the question of ideas for the FDLP in the digital age.

Paul Arrigo, Washburn University Law Library, suggested that Council take a look at the Dupont Circle document from 1992 and not "reinvent the wheel."

Margaret S. Powell, The College of Wooster, commended Council for their hard work in capturing the spirit of the audience concerns and for rising above the "general gloom."

Sheila McGarr of GPO reminded the audience that she needs evaluations of the Conference.

Maggie Farrell announced that Andrea Sevetson has been elected as incoming Council Chair. She will assume that office at the conclusion of the April 2001 San Antonio meeting.

Council committees and Chairs are as follows. Membership will be posted on the Council Web site:

Preservation, Donna Koepp

Operations, Linda Fredericks

Cataloging/Locator, Dena Hutto

Communications, Sharon Hogan

Work Groups (not part of committees):

Cost and Value of Depository Collections Work Group, Mary Redmond

Core E-Competencies Work Group, Robert Hinton

Francis Buckley thanked all for their Conference participation and their FDLP support. He noted that thousands of people are helped in depository libraries every day, and extends his appreciation.

Michael DiMario joined the Superintendent of Documents in thanks. He said that Council recommendations help manage the FDLP, and GPO couldn’t function well without Council’s advice. He thanks all Council members during the last 7 ½ years (his term as Public Printer), prior Council members during his service as Superintendent of Documents, and all people who have ever served on Council. This is a service to the community and to GPO which goes beyond expectations, and is something we as a community owe as a debt.

Mr. DiMario thanked the attendees for allowing him to serve and thanked the President of the United States for the great honor of serving in this office. He hopes to continue beyond the November Presidential election in public office.

The audience responded with a standing ovation.

Maggie Farrell remarked that we wouldn’t be here today if it were not for the positive leadership of GPO, and that we hope to see Mr. DiMario at the April Council meeting.

The meeting of Council adjourned at 3:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Mary Redmond
Secretary, Depository Library Council

January 7, 2001