Council Members present:

John C. Kavaliunas, U.S. Census Bureau

Cheryl Knott Malone, University of Arizona

Michele T. McKnelly, University of Wisconsin, River Falls

John Phillips, Oklahoma State University

Mary W. Prophet (Secretary), Denison University

Laura Saurs, Newark Public Library

Barbara S. Selby, University of Virginia School of Law

Lynn Siemers, Washington Hospital Center

Sunday Oct. 19 – Afternoon Council Working Session

The Council session opened with a welcome from Public Printer Bruce James. He expressed pleasure with the pace of the reorganization at GPO, and the negotiations with OMB, and informed Council that the GPO appropriation had been passed by Congress and signed by the President with the full amount of the requested funding.

Judy Russell, Superintendent of Documents, briefed Council on meetings with ARL Library Directors; presentations to library groups including American Association of Law Libraries, July 15, 2003 -- Seattle, Washington, Canadian Library Association AGIIG and American Library Association GODORT Joint Program, June 21, 2003 -- Toronto, Canada, and the Association for Research Libraries, May 15, 2003 -- Lexington, Kentucky; visits to depository libraries and other information gathering/public relations activities. She indicated plans to continue these efforts and encouraged Council to help her identify other opportunities.

The progress of the GPO reorganization was reviewed. It was noted that historically GPO has been organized by funding source. The reorganization seeks to create a structure organized by function. Reorganization by function should create a more efficient GPO as operations that previously occurred in several different divisions of GPO are consolidated. The objective is to have the reorganization and physical rearrangement of offices finished by April. Interviews for some positions were scheduled for the week of Oct. 27. GPO has hired a Human Capital Officer.

Copies of "Print on Demand" projects were available for examination by Council and the audience. Currently costs for single copies of documents produced using "print on demand" are approximately 20% higher than the cost for a copy of a document produced using the traditional methods. However, overall costs are likely to be less as only needed copies are printed and there are no warehousing costs. Print on demand currently requires 48 hours. GPO hopes to reduce turn-around time for these materials to one hour. Congressional Materials are moving rapidly to "print on demand." Some GPO publications will continue to be produced in the traditional manner; for example, the Budget, the Government Manual, and the Statistical Abstract. This topic concluded with answers to questions concerning types of files required and mark-up procedures. A brief discussion of LOCKSS followed.

The three most important issues for Council to cover are:

1. Authentication
2. Preservation – Including management of the legacy collections in FDLP libraries, the creation of the GPO collection of last resort, and the number of tangible copies needed to ensure preservation.
3. Version Control – We may need to redefine what is a document. When are changes significant enough to determine a new edition? How often in the change progress do we need to preserve?

Council received handouts from the ARL meeting and from the regional meeting. Handouts were accompanied by a brief discussion of the ARL Prospectus.

For the remainder of the session, GPO asked Council to participate in an attribute analysis exercise conducted by Larry Jellen, a GPO Agency Expert. This was a closed exercise because the facilitator would be holding the exercise with others later in the conference and didn’t want the response of others to be influenced by the responses of Council.

John Phillips reported on the meeting of the Regional Depository Librarians held Oct. 16-18. Committee Chairs gave brief reports of the work of each committee.

Council briefly reviewed a summary of the "essential titles" survey result.

Logistics, procedures, and issues for discussion in Monday morning breakout sessions by type of library were discussed at some length. Breakout session outlines included additional suggestions for the essential titles list, the tiered system concept, incentives and disincentives (also called carrots and barnacles).

Council reviewed GPO’s responses to the spring recommendations. Considerable discussion followed on issues related to recommendation number two, on the United States Library of Public Information. These issues included the facility for print on demand, the relevance of the OMB contract with the concern over how many print copies is enough to ensure preservation, the importance of retrospective cataloging for materials included in the collection, the nature of such a collection ("light or dark"), and issues relating to regional libraries.

Council reviewed the three issues identified for Council consideration during the morning session and discussed a number of additional issues. These include: continuing up-to-date communication with GPO, Council participation in the strategic/vision plan; collection development; policy recommendations; issues related to training; dissemination of electronic information, particularly content/management; the impact of the reorganization on GPO and the FDLP; and the role of Council. This review of issues was followed by a brief discussion of matters related to training for depository librarians, including Web based training, the possibility of partnering with library schools, and the possible use of graduate school students to assist in the development of Web based training resources.

Council extracted a list of top priority issues for Bruce James these are 1. Authentication, 2. Version Control , 3. Training/certification, and 4. Preservation. A brief discussion of preservation and digitization related issues ensued.

The meeting concluded with a review of the procedures and issues for the Monday break-out sessions.

Duncan M. Aldrich, Paul Arrigo, Dan Barkley, Charles D. Eckman, Doris Small Helfer, Barbara J. Ford, John C. Kavaliunas, Cheryl Knott Malone , Michele T. McKnelly, John Phillips, Mary W. Prophet, Laura Saurs, Barbara S. Selby, Lynn Siemers and John A. Stevenson.

Robin Haun-Mohamed, Chief, Depository Services, welcomed everyone and gave the usual logistics.

Daniel C. Barkley (Chair) called the meeting to order. After the welcoming statement, introduction of Council and Council aerobics, Chairman Barkley stated the Council recognized the importance of the continuing discussions that will occur over the course of the meeting. This discussion continues the efforts begun in Reno and are focused on a new vision of GPO and the FDLP for the 21^st century. Council’s role will be to continue that visioning process with GPO and, of course, with the community.

Since we are quickly approaching Bruce James’s 1^st anniversary as Public Printer on Dec. 1, "it is therefore critically important that all of us here today begin to define and articulate what that vision will actually be. We have been in a fact-gathering mode. We have had a lot of discussions in Reno. There have been a lot of discussions, I know, within the state library organizations, local library organizations, GOVDOC-L and other exchanges. There are of course a myriad of issues that we face today. While many may focus on the tasks that may be performed at our respective institutions, Council’s role is to provide focus and clarity to the major issues that have been defined at Reno."

Chair Barkley outlined the three major issues identified in Council’s Sunday working session as authentication, preservation, and version control. He noted that there are obviously a great many other major issues which will arise during the course of the Council sessions, mentioning briefly digitization and the possibility of tiered service levels. Chair Barkley urged attendees to participate as partners in the development of the new vision for GPO and the FDLP. He urged veterans to network with new attendees.

See remarks,
http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/adnotes/ad111503.html#5

See remarks,
http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/adnotes/ad111503.html#6

Diane Eidelman, Suffolk Cooperative Library System: Mentioned that last spring Ric Davis had a handout that showed the number of times GPOAccess received referrals from individual libraries. She understood that this information would also be available for referrals from the OPACS and wanted to know when this would be available. T.C. Evans responded that this would be possible as soon as GPO could implement the new metric software for GPOAccess. This has been delayed by procurement setbacks. Diane suggested that GPO send out that information rather than wait for people to ask for information. Stressed that libraries need numbers to show that we are doing our jobs.

Jill Vassilakos-Long, California State University – San Bernardino: Suggested that having to have an entire separate collection for government is a barnacle. Judy Russell responded that documents could be integrated with existing LC or Dewey classed collections. GPO is having conversations with the Library of Congress about what it would require to include Dewey and LC numbers on Government publications as they are cataloged. GPO’s retrospective cataloging could utilize work done by partner libraries in this area.

Where are you in the inspection process? Judy Russell: At the current time, we are working on the idea of consultants. In the short term inspectors are working on clearing all libraries that are on probation. After that is completed we will examine how we work the balance between consultants and inspections.

Julie Wallace – University of Minnesota: You spoke of 95% of the materials distributed through the program being electronic. In the past GPO has spoken of the electronic collection, which includes GPO making certain that there are permanent copies of all those things. You indicated that things that GPO is linking to at other agencies are indicated as being part of that 95%. Can we still be confident that there is still in place either a program of official agreements with those other agencies or that GPO is in fact backing up all of those things onto GPO servers so that they will be permanently available? Judy Russell: It is my understanding that if we do not have an agreement with the agency we are taking things into the electronic archive.

Julie Wallace: In relation to the new digitization of historic materials, I’m assuming that GPO is keeping in touch with the major players, for example LC and the Census Bureau, on what they are going to do to be sure we will not duplicate what they have done? Judy Russell: That is one reason of the clearinghouse. Part of GPO’s new way of doing business is to work very aggressively with agencies to show them the opportunities to work with us on the digitization of their materials. The Office of the Federal Register has shown a strong interest in working with GPO and with the community in getting the CFR and the Federal Register digitized, and they will certify it as a true copy so that it can be used legally and can be substituted. A number of library directors have offered to look at already digitized materials and identify already digitized government publications that can be brought forward and begin to form a random collection.

Audience Member - Public Library: I have submitted a number of things to lost docs. I’ve never had any response. Is it a black hole? Judy Russell: We want people to be using lost docs. Betty Jones, GPO: The new e-service will alert you when your lost doc is received. At the current time there is a backlog of approximately 500 documents in lost docs. GPO hopes to have the backlog reduced by the beginning of the new calendar year.

Bernadine Abbott Hoduski: Expressed concerned about agreements covering collections which are arrived at when libraries are leaving the program. She urged that there be some written agreements and that the agreements be kept. Judy Russell: replied that in this new environment where GPO is looking at establishing a national library and consolidating collections, GPO is considering reclaiming these materials. Bernadine hoped collections would remain available within the state and stressed that it would be important that other libraries in the state have some way to know about depository materials still held in libraries which have left the program.

Cathy Hartman, University of North Texas: Inquired about GPO’s efforts to include open source software in the GPO procurement process. Judy Russell: GPO is actively looking at open source software. They are increasingly working at identifying requirements and looking at the need to not lock up the publications with proprietary software.

Sandra McAninch, University of Kentucky Libraries: As we talk about digitizing and creating back-ups, are you considering a microfilm copy for back-up? Judy Russell: If it can be done at the same time as the digitization.

Duncan Aldrich, University of Nevada-Reno: A follow-up on the Eidelman question: in libraries these days we are having difficulty counting services we provide because of the Web basis. Are you working with any library group on this issue? TC Evans: GPO is working with the NISO on library metrics. Have set up a process by which you can register where your OPAC and your Web pages are, so GPO can collect data.

Paul Arrigo, Pennsylvania State University, A number of libraries are classifying their documents in LC from day one. Judy Russell: We hope that once the ILS is up, we can collect records from library partners, add them to the collection and distribute them to our library partners.

Barbie Selby, University of Virginia: Wondered how the legacy collection and National Archives collection fit together. Judy Russell: - GPO has talked to the National Archives about the set GPO sent to the Archives. At this point we have not discussed trying to take that set back to use as the collection of last resort or as a source for the digitization. With the Memorandum of Understanding between GPO and the National Archives, it is possible that GPO could look at that collection also as a part of the collection at GPO.

Charles Eckman, Stanford, CA: What format will the digital preservation master be in? Will it be in a proprietary format or some type of Open source file? Judy Russell: We are not yet far enough along to answer this question.

Dave Morrison, University of Utah: How will we know if the commercial products have met GPO’s criteria? Once they change data to fit use, the change destroys the digital signature. Judy Russell: Once they massage that data they will interrupt the digital signature. This issue hasn’t come up from the private sector. GPO is willing to work with the commercial sector on this issue.

Joe Milazzo, Southern Methodist University: Indicated that catalogers at his institution don’t like GPO cataloging. Noticed recently a proliferation of new electronic records. Judy Russell: Suggested that he take this issue to the cataloging committee that meets at lunch. Also, suggested an effort be made to set up a meeting between ALA cataloging committee and Council’s cataloging committee. Joe Milazzo: On a related issue, the library community, as a whole, needs to look at more closely at MARC. Can we expect to see cataloging in some of the Metadata formats? Judy Russell: We are looking at Dublin Core metadata as well as MARC records. We have tried consistently to deal with whatever the standards are out there in the community and respond to them. We are also looking at one of the characteristics of the ILS as the ability to both import COSATI records and export to COSATI because many of our agency partners, the Department of Energy and other sci-tech agencies are using COSATI instead of MARC.

Lynn Siemers reported on the Sunday Council session and John Phillips reported on the Regional meeting.

The remainder of the morning was composed of breakout sessions by type of library.

The afternoon session began with reports on the Breakout sessions.

Session resulted in ten carrots and a few barnacles. The barnacles included the level of detail required in collection development statements. There was concern about the level of knowledge of users needed for the statement. Another barnacle concerned the cumbersome nature of the disposal process. Suggested carrots included: IP identification for databases (e.g., STAT-USA or PACER) for both the designated depository and its branch libraries; support source for small non-depository libraries; depository library quota for print on demand copies, more information in the list of classes; guides in handbook; a collection policy template; smart barcodes that would come on the documents which could be scanned to produce discard lists; the Sudoc number printed on each document; training programs opened to branch and non-depository libraries; guidance as an incentive for initializing cooperation between libraries; funds for travel to remote training opportunities.

Harvard suggested that map libraries might be under-represented in the discussions. Major barnacles mentioned were item selection system (people wanted to choose by title and/or have selection work more like an approval vendor), a pressing need for the item list to be cleaned up and inactive items removed, and the problems with PURLs for serials. Suggested carrots include the creation of a non-essential titles list, a discount on the price of the Serial Set for depository libraries, more frequent and free cataloging data and print on demand was considered a major carrot.

There was considerable discussion of digitization. It is important that depository libraries be included in the development of standards for digitization. Suggestions for materials to be digitized included the Monthly Catalog and documents included in an updated list of popular names of government reports. It was pointed out that ¾ of digitization projects are done by non-docs people in libraries. Reaction to the possibility of a tiered system was mixed.

Law Library Break out Session report - Paul Arrigo and Barbie Selby

The list of essential titles from the survey was handed to participants for comment and mark-up. The barnacle reported was the inability to discard ephemera. Carrots included print on demand, access to PACER, pushed MARC records, and a portal where law libraries would register their IP address and have access to a law page. Law libraries did not relate to the concept of levels. They prefer division by type of library. The law libraries provided an unranked list of priorities for titles/types of materials from the "legacy" collection to digitize.

Most of the time was taken up by discussion of essential titles. Suggested carrots included: the World News Service. There was concern over the ability of small and medium academic libraries to manage the bibliographic control of electronic resources. It was suggested that GPO purchase Marcive’s "Documents without Shelves" product for depository libraries. The discussions of tiered levels of service resulted in comments on the need for certified training and concern over how such a concept would fit with Title 44.

Dan Barkley expressed concern that people still do not understand the visioning process.

Doris Helfer expressed interest in the idea of providing a specialized portal as a model for small public, law, and medical libraries and thinks this would be a really attractive carrot and would make a big statement about government documents. This may be more important than the level of service approach.

Paul Arrigo asked if GPO is looking at content management software. TC Evans responded that yes, they were, specifically for use within GPO, but the investigation hasn’t gotten to the point where GPO is starting to dissect this. Paul suggested that content management software could be used to help people design such a Web site. This would be a great carrot for depositories and it would really help GPO create a strong identity with its customers.

If we could get agencies to tell GPO in advance what they are going to publish we could try to do something like LC cataloging in publication.

In the electronic environment you can get away from the item or category selection. You are not required to keep electronic for 5 years.

Robin Haun-Mohamed welcomed attendees and made announcements.

Bruce James: It is my distinct pleasure as my first job today to introduce Robert W. Ney as Congressman from Ohio and Chair of the Joint Committee on Printing–also Chair of the House Administration Committee.

Joint Committee on Printing is responsible for oversight of the FDLP.

It’s a pleasure to be here.

I’ve been in office 22 years, serving in different levels of the legislature, and Bruce James is probably the most unusual human being I’ve ever met. He has kept to his word. When we met with him he said he would take a certain direction and he did it. And that’s unusual sometimes in the U.S. Government. So I give him a lot of credit. Bruce James deserves a round of applause for the work that he does. The Superintendent of Documents, Judy Russell, also has risen to the occasion to provide service, and I think exemplifies how the government is here to help. Also Gloria Robinson, she’s from Ohio, graduated of The Ohio State University, as I did. Obviously there are no Buckeye fans in here, probably a lot of Wisconsin fans. You are not real popular in Columbus this year but we’ll forgive you. Council Chair Dan Barkley, who technically is from the University of New Mexico, actually is from the state of Ohio. How many of you here are from Ohio? How many were born in Ohio or lived in Ohio? Usually there are a lot more. Also on the Council somewhere are Mary Prophet from the Library of Denison University and John Graham of the Public Library of Cincinnati. So I just want to give a general welcome on behalf of the United States Congress and also of the JCP.

You know it’s been in operation since 1813 and dates back to the age of James Madison and the founding fathers. The Federal Depository Library Program helps keep Americans informed on the actions of their public officials and is really a vital component of our system of government. It is something to be amazingly proud of.

The Joint Committee on Printing and Congress fully support the FDLP. Just recently the Congress approved, and the President signed into law, the Government Printing Office’s full request for a 16.9% increase in funding for the Superintendent of Documents Salaries and Expenses appropriations, raising the budget to $34.5 million. The increased funding will be used to upgrade and improve GPO Access and provide the FDLP with needed resources. JCP will continue to support efforts to modernize the FDLP to provide access to Government information. And I mention this because the increase was obviously needed.

These are very difficult times budget wise in our country’s history after the last two years. Obviously we have obligations to intelligence, to the military after 9-11, and also to the two wars that we have been engaged in. So acquiring the funding right now, believe me, is a very difficult thing to do. But I think because of the way the system has been run, people have faith in it and that is why the funding has come through.

The FDLP is doing a very commendable job in transitioning to a predominately electronic information system as Congress has directed it to. The JCP is confident in the leadership of Bruce James and Judy Russell, in full consultation with the library community, which is very important. The depository library program is making the necessary transition to continue to provide innovative, effective public access in the 21st century. Depository librarians are critically important partners with the GPO in the operation of this program and without them this program just simply could not function. The JCP and GPO regard librarians as essential in providing effective public access to government information to the entire world. In the Internet, the skills and abilities of librarians are needed more than ever to assist Americans in locating and using informational resources, including those provided by the government. Depository librarians should be commended for the great job they do in providing access to government information through their libraries.

You know, as you get older you appreciate things a lot more. I appreciate my librarian at St. John’s in Bellaire, Ohio; you always could get help and assistance and direction. I think people have good visions in their minds of the library system and how much it can help. The current use of electronic information technology raises several issues of interest in GPO and the library community. The issues include assuring permanent public access to electronic collections; providing adequate security to ensure the integrity and accuracy of government documents; making the necessary technology and skills available to everyone who wants access to the government information; ensuring that the costs of providing public access to electronic information are distributed equitably; defining the role of librarians in an increasingly Internet based information culture where nearly everyone has access to information all the time, and determining the best model for the FDLP in the 21^st century. These are a few of the goals I think will be exciting and challenging.

The development of the Federal Depository Library of the Year Award, by the way, which will be awarded for the first time, as I understand it, at this conference, is an excellent idea. It will provide long deserved recognition to this important program and help inform the public about what a great public resource the program has become. I commend you for doing it. People need to be recognized. Of course you are all important. Everybody deserves an award. But the recognition with an award is a good thing to start.

Let me close by saying you have done a wonderful job. When I first was elected to Congress, approximately 10 years ago, we did not have a way people could get to the U.S. House and the opening day of Congress. I think it was on January 5 that the switch was flipped and Thomas came into being. And it brought the world to the U.S. House, and it also it brought us to the world, and we have been able to communicate with more people than ever before. But is has been a challenge for Congress. The Committee on House Administration overlooks the technology, and we continue constantly to question ourselves on what direction we should go. I think the great thing about all of you is you also provide your bailiwick with direction, you ask the questions and you bring everything into the 21^st century.

Let me just close by again commending everyone. Also I want to say this has been a very difficult two years for our county, after what happened to us on 9-11. We always think first and foremost of our American men and women who are in uniform, defending this great nation and providing the feeling of democracy and the seeds of the movement towards democracy for generations to come. But also during these difficult times, we continue to live and work, and our communities will continue despite attempts to stop us. Our way of life will be made better and more prosperous for future generations. That’s what you are about. You are about providing something–people many not know your names or may not know what you do, but surely the effects of what you are working on today are going to be there forever, for future generations and for our country. So thank you for coming to Washington and God bless you.

Bruce James thanked the Chairman and then asked Ridley Kessler to step forward. Bruce James noted that in the 18 months since the president announced his intention to appoint him, he had met some truly outstanding people. He called Ridley Kessler the Dean of the Depository Library Community. Bruce James expressed the thanks of GPO for his 35 years of service to the depository community. He then read a copy of a letter of commendation and presented Ridley with a certificate of appreciation. The Chair of Council Dan Barkley presented Ridley with a Book of Remembrance from members of the depository community. Ridley thanked the Public Printer and the depository community. Ridley finished his remarks with the warning "Just remember I’m retired but not dead!"

Bruce James: After giving the Keynote address to GraphExpo, Bruce James was asked if he had renamed the Government Printing Office. GPO has not been renamed but a new GPO logo has been designed. A new logo that is more progressive, more in the 21^st century, without ignoring the past. The head of the Congressional Printing Group, Charlie Cook, changed his group name to the Office of Congressional Publishing Services. This change was made without consultation with the Public Printer. The Public Printer feels that this is an excellent example of the transformation of GPO from a "command and control structure where everything started with the Public Printer… to the point where we are forcing decisions making lower and lower. This should result in a much better level of response to GPO’s many customers. GPO is even beginning to look at the world in terms of customers."

GPO has made a lot of changes, and Bruce James appreciated Congressman Ney recognizing that. The President has signed appropriation bills for two of the many agencies requesting money from Congress. One of them was the GPO appropriation. GPO got every nickel asked for. Bruce James does not believe that many agencies will get every nickel asked for. Bruce James considers this support from Congress a tribute to the men and women of GPO and the faith Chairman Ney and the members of the committee have in what GPO is striving to do. Bruce James expressed special appreciation for the support shown by the members of the United States Congress and reminded the conference attendees to thank their Senators and Congressmen for that support.

Bruce James came to GPO knowing a lot about the printing industry, but with little knowledge and appreciation of the FDLP. In a speech in Chicago, Bruce James talked mostly about his role as guardian of government information. "The future of the GPO lies not just in the preservation but in the recognition, extension and expansion of the FDLP into the 21^st century in a rational way."

Fact-finding has been done over past year about every aspect of GPO’s business, not just about the FDLP, but also the information industry and all the publics served by GPO. If this were the private sector, the job would have been done quickly, but the public sector requires more time. GPO is right on schedule. The GAO is GPO’s partner in this fact-finding process. GAO should complete its work at the end of February or the beginning of March. GPO will wait until all the facts are in before moving forward to develop a plan for the future. GPO expects to engage all of its publics (library community, printing community, information industry, GPO employees and Congress) in the development of a logical plan. Then it will move forward.

Bruce James updated some issues discussed at the DLC meeting in April and presented some ideas about where we need to go. Among the issues reviewed were the fugitive document problem, concern about authenticity and preservation of electronic information. These are mission critical areas.

Before updating attendees on these mission critical areas, Bruce James reviewed the problems and negotiations with OMB. He expressed gratitude to Mitch Daniels for signing the compact with GPO before he left. The essence of this is OMB’s recognition of that the most important role that GPO has is to gather government documents from all sources, cataloging, organizing those documents and distributing them broadly throughout the United States and making certain that they are available to the public.

Regulations for public printing are outdated. Last year, 10,000 printers went out of business worldwide. Printers are looking in two directions to move their businesses. These are content management and distribution to finished product. The new plan will let printers talk directly to the agency, and will allow agencies to select vendors that will give the taxpayer the biggest "bang for the buck." GPO maintains the list of suitable vendors, and registers and qualifies them. If the agency has someone they want to use that is not on the list, GPO will try to get them on the list as quickly as possible.

In the past, GPO charged a 7% surcharge to the agency. Now the vendors must pay a 3% surcharge to GPO. In return, OMB will work with GPO to shut the agency shops so that they won’t waste taxpayers’ money, and to make sure an electronic manuscript comes to GPO. The Department of Labor was chosen as a test for this. Jim Bradley, in printing sales, has built a sales team to deal with the Department of Labor. This will help people directly interface with client and vendor.

Judy Russell is looking at issue of fugitive documents in the Department of Labor. How are digital documents created? How can these documents be transferred into GPO? GPO’s Inspector General is also working on using resources to move the agency forward. His job is to look at building an effective enforcement mechanism for enforcing the rules and laws concerning getting materials into the FDLP system. GPO hopes to have a report on that by this time next year.

GPO is working on a project with a long-time partner, the Federal Register, on authenticating information. The National Archives has worked with GPO for 70 years to deliver the Federal Register and not one day have they failed to deliver. Together GPO and the National Archives have initiated a pilot program to watermark each document, at point of origin, and at each stage throughout, until it is on the GPO site. This is a learning process on how to authenticate a document so that it can be forwarded several times and its validity can be assured.

Public access in perpetuity remains a tough challenge. GPO has had many meetings outside GPO to look at the development of technologies in the ability to maintain digital data. The Public Printer hopes to report on pilots in that area in the spring.

What is coming? Bruce James wants GPO to be a leader in these areas, with people whose primary job is to do this. He wants people whose paycheck at GPO is due to leading in these areas.

1. What constitutes a version of information? What constitutes a Government document today? What happens when agencies can update daily? In the old days, it was a print edition, what is it now? This will affect a lot of planning. This definition will be a matter of public policy that will be determined by more than the depository community, but the depository community needs to begin action on this issue now.
2. If from this moment on, the primary method of distribution is digital, then we will need to find a way to store this information in perpetuity. Also, what do we do with the legacy collections? Clearly we are going to need to digitize all of it – We can make it searchable or images. We will need to do both. We need to prioritize this information and make decisions on what is worth making searchable. What can we use as just page images?
3. How is GPO going to make money at this? We are here now because the GPO and FDLP were established with a sustainable model that was made many years ago. GPO is charged by law with recovering the expenses for what it does. That broke down several years ago. All of the money that GPO had to move forward has disappeared. GPO has lost tens of millions of dollars.

Chairman Barkley established ground rules for the session:

• Every one needs to keep in mind the three main issues.
• Questions will be taken from Council first, then from the audience.
• Questions not on target will be moved to the question box.

Michele McKnelly: Other people beyond libraries need to come to the table. Who are we talking to? Bruce James: At the end of the day Congress must act on it. When you go to Congress and you don’t have multiple groups to take up the issue nothing happens. We need support from many different groups to get things done. Bruce James needs Council to examine who should be brought to the table to discuss the National Information Policy. Michele McKnelly: Agencies, scholarly groups, etc.

Barbie Selby: Money issue is very important. Doesn’t necessarily think going to Congress is a bad model. Adobe Acrobat to those who are not Web providers is essentially free. Suggest that there might be model there that GPO could look into. Is there some value added service that could be provided to agencies, sort of like the overhead for printing, being the service bureau for the printing by agencies? Bruce James: Good idea.

Paul Arrigo: Has GPO considered providing competitive analysis, actually using the data for businesses? Bruce James: GPO does not create information. We process information in plain vanilla fashion. The recombining of information, annotation, etc., falls to the private sector and it should be left in the private sector. On the other hand, we do have some interesting things. One is the speed of GPO data acquisition. In addition, there are 2 other areas: data tagging and metadata. One would think that the GPO would have the ability to create government-wide standards for this, otherwise our ability to migrate materials into the future is negatively impacted. In GPO training we will focus on that. If GPO can provide that for private sector, very rapidly process information that is properly coded and has metadata properly imbedded, it will reduce their costs for handling that data. GPO would help to be able to share its profits with the agencies.

Other questions remain. How can we charge for what we deliver on the Internet? Can we build something where people have access to information on the Internet, but we could include certain things that they might be willing to pay for? What are those things, and how could GPO do that? Always understanding that there is a commitment to the free distribution of government information through what we call today the depository community. We must be careful as we define the depository community for the future and we must be looking at that too.

Dan Barkley: Question from a breakout session. When links come out to new agency report, PURL links are not necessarily linked to older reports. How can GPO provide links to back issues? Judy Russell: The issue there is largely through the partnerships such as we are establishing with the OMB compact as a model and through other outreach to agencies. We are going to have to provide tools for them that make it easier for them to publish. In essence giving them reasons to modifying agency behavior and letting agencies know how that affects the users. Must communicate with the agencies. Bruce James: GPO trains librarians but also trains people from agencies. GPO will need to modify this training to reflect new needs. Agencies do not yet know the job.

Grace York, University of Michigan: Grace represented the GPO a few years ago in Russia at a State Department conference. One of the selling points was that basic government information should be free to everyone on the Internet. GPO set a model by providing this information free on the Internet. Now most countries and states release their legislative information to the Internet. What GPO will do affects the world. Will GPO consider what people need for democracy? Bruce James: For many years we had a product called The Congressional Record. People were interested in it because it affected a lot of actions. GPO sent the Congressional Record free to depositories but had several thousand people who paid $1,000 each to subscribe to it because they thought it was very important. In the case of the Federal Register, 35 thousand people paid almost $1,000 per year for their own subscriptions. Today there are fewer than 2,000 people. What is going on here? Grace York: Now they get it free on the Internet? Bruce James: Why could GPO charge then and not now? Grace York: If GPO charged, they will go to Thomas or down load and distribute it for free. Bruce James: We need a model that will let us continue doing what we are doing today and more.

Doris Helfer: Clearly what people pay for or are willing to pay for in terms of government information is something that adds value to what they need. Interested in the most current information, last year’s statistics on trade don’t interest them. The ability to manipulate data, the advanced information, they will pay for that. These are not things we provide as government documents professionals. What business wants is how their area is doing economically. Something that is an investment on their part that will help make them a market. If we were the resource that would put them in touch with the expert in the government agency; if we could provide a way for them to manipulate the data and put it in their spreadsheets, then we might have something they would buy. Bruce James: Appreciates comments.

Cheryl Knott Malone, Arizona: I appreciate the information about how the OMB compact was structured to shift from a 7% charge to agency to a 3% charge to vendor. Is there a sense of the market in the private sector for services from GPO to the vendors and how that might play out? Judy Russell: GPO has been having a series of meetings with a variety of private sector companies and is beginning to explore those issues to lay out the fact that GPO is seeking partnerships that would not violate Title 44 and the interests of the FDLP. These are in the beginning exploratory stage to discover where there might be a meeting of interests that might lead to product development that could produce revenue streams for both GPO and the private sector partners.

John Kavaliunas, Census Bureau: Agencies are going to want to be purveyors of their own information. Where GPO does have a strategic advantage is that GPO is in the unique position to be able to pull together data from a variety of sources and to add value to them. Bruce James: Just by the aggregation itself is what you are saying. This is an interesting question: is it to the agencies’ advantage to purvey that data themselves, or is GPO in a position to provide enough value to the agencies that they would appreciate such services from GPO? I suspect this is a case of "one size won’t fit all." GPO needs to design services to fit the needs of the customer agencies.

Michele McKnelly: I don’t understand why version control is a public policy issue and business model is not a public policy issue. This group has an interest in this and there are other groups out there in government and in corporate America who will want to have input on the business model and selling this material back. We need to have this discussion with everybody. Also very interested in what Congressman Ney said. They were interested in universal technology skills being delivered and the costs would be distributed equitably, because I’m not sure this would be part of distributing costs to users equitably. It would be distributed to those who could pay.

Bruce James: GPO is not looking to take away from FDLP partners any advantages they have. GPO is looking at ways to increase that advantage. Congressman Ney did not say that it is the policy of the United States Government that its information is free. It is well established by custom, by rule and probably by law that we are going to distribute the vast majority of the government’s information to the American public through the FDLP. There are two reasons for doing that: one is to be sure that citizens have access to the work of their government, and the second is to protect the record of that work in perpetuity. We are not looking at changing that at all.

What is being addressed is the change in shipping a publication by order to John Smith in Kansas and having John Smith downloading that same information for free. In the old days, we added up the costs of producing and shipping the material and that was the cost we charged. Those costs did not all go away when we stopped printing. They changed, but didn’t go away. Now we are not in a position to collect any money from John Smith.

This is not how Title 44 started out. This situation just happened. GPO was slow to the gate; when we got there, we didn’t have the business skills we needed. We abandoned the charges because of problems, but we need to address them. We have ways now to have different kinds of partnerships with the private sector. You need to give me some direction. It will be a year or more before we are ready to try our first model on this. We will solicit views from all sectors. Nothing we do today will last very long. It is the nature of the commercial world today. If GPO is in the commercial information business in some form or fashion, it must be prepared to change.

GPO is prepared to stay the course and make certain it finds a way to build the next generation of partnerships with the depository libraries, based on the GPO bringing to the table something of equivalent value to the depository libraries as in the old days of printed publications. I’m not sure we have the equivalent value in the mix right now. I think allowing you the same access to government documents on the Internet that John Smith in Kansas has may not be that equivalent value. GPO is committed to figuring what that equivalent value would be.

Michele McKnelly: Are you looking at placing restrictions on the repackaging of the back files of materials that fall under your purview, like the Congressional Record and the Federal Register. You used this New York Times model to give an example. Are you looking at that, because there are people out here who repackage things for their constituents every day? That’s our job. We are not interested in any kind of restrictions on the back-file of any of that material and we will place it up on freely accessible Web sites and would not be interested in restricting it. Bruce James: That will narrow what you'll be able to have, won’t it. We need a new way of looking at this. I don’t have a model in mind. All I know is that we need to find a new revenue model that will help fund in the future and one that doesn’t interfere with the mission that the depository library community has.

Paul Arrigo: In the past, GPO sold books that were freely available in the library. Why cannot GPO sell the things on the Web, for the convenience of it, that people could still walk to the library and get free? This could apply for both tangible products and for PDFs on the Internet. Bruce James: That’s a very good point. The old way, of having books in the warehouse and fifty years later throwing them away, isn’t going to work any longer. So GPO is looking at print on demand publications. I would also like to be able to offer agencies the opportunity to put their publications into a print on demand system. A system that would allow us to print on a regional basis to order for those that might want to buy them and to have that opportunity to have it available for a long period of time, fifty or a hundred years or more.

Barbie Selby: Hopes that Congress and Congressional appropriations are not out of this mix and also generating money. How much money are we talking about here, 10 million, 30 million 60 million? One of the value added things discussed is the authentic version of material. FDLP is the carrot. We get authentic versions available in libraries. If you want it in your law office you pay $9.95 by credit card for it. Judy Russell: Ten years ago the sales program had revenues of $84 million. This year revenue was $32 million. This may not be a goal to get back to, but represents the scale of change caused by providing all of this information free on the Internet. Bruce James: Would not be worth the effort if it didn’t recover at least $50. Thinks the idea of selling authenticated versions very clever.

Duncan Aldrich: Encouraged everyone in the audience to meet with Council, if they have any ideas on this or other topics. Reviewed some of the ideas expressed during the session and in conversations on break:

1. Appropriated funds
2. Essential titles for free but maybe pay for other titles
3. Free at libraries but not free at other places
4. How much revenue will the print on demand generate
5. Where does the private sector come into this
6. We need to be in touch with the SIIA
7. Possible charging back to agencies
8. Most recent for free pay for older, or older free, pay for recent
9. Selling authenticated copies

Objective is to try to keep information as widely available as possible. The technology screams to have open access to government and other information.

Barbara Ford: We need a summit meeting where some of these various groups come together. Different groups will have different perspectives. We need a way for some of the key players to come together. Bruce James: Good idea. Include newspapers in that group too.

Charles (Chuck) Eckman: Suggested an addition to Duncan’s list. Follow-up on the idea of selling authentic copies outside of the depository system as something that is a characteristic of enhanced or valued added services that might be sold, including things like data manipulation and data extraction. Things that would be for users who wanted advanced use of content. There would be a core that would be freely available for viewing and use at a basic level. There would not be any chronological distinctions or comprehensiveness distinctions, but a suite of services would be available in depositories and for a fee.

Dan Barkley: Michele mentioned depositories mining things and putting them up, implying that there would be a smaller set of things available for depositories. Did I miss understand you? Bruce James: Warned people to be careful, just because he used the Congressional Record and the Federal Register as an example, not to project his thoughts and ideas onto those two publications. Those may very well be publications we agree need to be freely accessible forever. If we are going to partner with the private sector, how are we going to persuade them to furnish a product jointly developed by GPO and the private sector to the depository libraries for free? Early indications are they would not find that objectionable. They would be interested in supporting that program. The difficulty would be if they gave it free to depository libraries and the libraries chose to compete with them for the sales of that material, which would be a problem. Judy Russell: We have one example in the program right now: StatUSA. They could claim an exemption under Title 44, as it must be supported by sales. They value having it in depositories but they would not want libraries to put it up, thereby destroying their ability to be self-sustaining. Dan Barkley: Another example is the World news service where we get one user. If we want to distribute to all our users we may have to pay for it.

Bruce James: The government invested in the libraries, but the libraries put in an even bigger investment. If we decide that it is important to maintain this, we must decide what we can offer to make this attractive to you. Many of the folks I talk with are the people who hold the purse strings, mayors of communities or university presidents. It is a matter of not just convincing you but also the people who control the purse strings. We will never be in the position where we do not need some funding from Congress. Congress has been unwilling to make up the 50 million dollar gap. We at the GPO have to be the masters of our own future. You have made such huge investments over the years, I want you to feel it is worth going in that direction. But you must understand that everything has changed, if we don’t do this we will be out of business.

Doris Helfer: When we make it available to our community, it has a greater value and a greater good, because people go back and do research that helps drive innovations. Information drives future analysis and development that comes back to industry in lots of ways that helps drive future innovation.

Ridley Kessler: Title 44 and the depository library program says no fee access to libraries. It doesn’t mention anybody else. There is hardly an Academic library and some publics that offer free printing for anything, including government information. When we do that with electronics and a lot of distance even that is not available to people who don’t have a library card. A lot of libraries are starting to cut down on their access even to government information. In the ARL survey, the biggest problem besides staffing is space. We have begged, pleaded, been far seeing about getting electronics. We cannot now start wailing and gnashing our teeth about how many print copies we can get of documents. If GPO can solve problems so that even fugitive documents are available on line and you can preserve it, then anyone who doesn’t want it that way should pay for it. The old system where we sometimes got things 4 ways--print, microfilm, CD, on-line--won’t work any more. We are in the electronic age. We have to learn to live with that and anything else I think we have to pay for.

Greta Marlatt, Naval Postgraduate School: Our role has always been to make the information available, but not to make it free to print. In this arena, the technology does allow you to post it without allowing people to download it or print it. Recommends a look at the National Academy press model, where you can look at a document page by page or down load it or print it page by page, but if you want the entire PDF you have to pay for it. If the public wants the convenience of having the whole thing they would have to pay for it. Bruce James: Interesting.

Christopher Dixon, St Josephs University, Philadelphia: We actually pay for government information a number of ways through the aggregators. Libraries pay for this because the access mechanisms are much better than some government sites. Some of today’s proposals may be in competition with private industry as well. Bruce James: There may be real value in what the private sector is doing. Has asked Judy Russell to look at the development of two levels of searching. One would be a general public level of searching; the other would be the development of very special data mining tools that would go only to depository libraries.

Steve Hayes: Mr. James, you have hit one of our core values: government information is free to all. Another is the life cycle information goes through from collection thorough dissemination. The community is going to be unwilling to chop off the dissemination portion. It has been no fee to depositories. How do you define coming in to a depository in a virtual environment? It would be interesting to develop a model that would say for a fee you will have virtual access to the depository and a pass through. There would be X number of free ports which you could try to get into. We are limiting by number of ports. If you want to ensure the availability of a port you have to pay a fee. If selling it to the depositories is going to increase the income stream of the private sector, we are going to kick on that. It is like we are paying for the privilege of serving the American public. There are studies on the dollar value of depository materials vs. how much the libraries are paying to provide access. Making the depository and its ability to serve part of the revenue stream is going to be chancy and a barrier. Take a look at the Harvard business school model. You may buy a copy of a case and you may print it as often as you want, but you cannot download it and you cannot append it or anything else. It is a per use model.

Judy Russell: The recent ARL survey had a mean and median figure 245,000 to 345,000 dollars.

Duncan Aldrich: With the idea of a bundled package, instead of buying piece by piece, you would go straight to GPO and buy the discounted bundled package for $500 to $1000 dollars per year.

Cass Hartnett, University of Washington: Industry partners you should talk to include Amazon .com, Adobe.com and Real networks. Both Adobe and Real networks offer one little thing for free and then offer enhanced and expanded services by fee. Also Microsoft, because of their office suites they would be the experts on the versioning. E-commerce is risky and scary, and we don’t know how successful the commercial sector can be, so we certainly don’t know how successful the government can be entering e-commerce.

Bernadine Abbott Hoduski: Joint Committee on Printing, retired. Applauded the pilot project with the Department of Labor and working with the actual authors. The Joint Committee and Printing and GPO are both awesome publishers. GPO has provided publishing services forever: editing, proofing, bringing information in, aggregating data. All those things have been done forever, since the birth of the Government Printing Office. The agencies have paid for those services, and in most cases, i.e., the Congressional Record and the Federal Register, they have gotten a return for every penny they paid you in spades.

You have to have a revenue stream, and that stream should come from the agencies and the authors, not from the public. When the GPOAccess act was written and passed, the idea was free data for every citizen in the United States, because that is what the depository program is all about. The sales program was included because the Democrats had to bring the Republicans in and the Republicans wanted that. Now the Democrats and the Republicans alike think that it is great progress that a Republican Congress is just as supportive of the program as a Democratic Congress was. There has been a revolution. The revolution has not been in the libraries, it has not been with the librarians, it has been with the users. They now expect to get government information free. That is where the revolution has happened. The users are now aware of the treasure they can get. We need to bring revenue in, but not at the expense of the users. LC used to sell catalog card. Such a good job was made of converting cataloging to electronic distribution that catalog cards are gone as a revenue stream for LC. It would not be the biggest tragedy in the world for the GPO sales program to go down the tubes. We have to totally rethink that. Title 44 provided free public distribution of the Congressional record to all public libraries. The Geologic Survey also sent stuff out free. Title 44 is very broad, it covers not just the depository libraries, but all the free distribution programs that have existed since the beginning of our country. This is a more diverse and complicated issue than it appears on the surface. Applauds GPO for exploring the issues and bringing them to us as a community, not just to librarians but also to the private sector and the public, and recommends the conversation be broadened. Bruce James – We will try to get a broader conversation in St. Louis. I appreciate your comments very much. Liked the point of trying to get the agencies who create the information to put some money into this.

Chris Brown, University of Denver: Building on what Bernadine was just asking, wondered what a cost recovery model, an agency charge back model would look like. If instead of charging 3%, the charge was 3.5% or 4%, with the carrot to the agencies being expedited positing on the Internet, and secondly permanent public access guaranteed. My thought being, how do you bring in smaller government agencies that produce fugitive documents? Can we tweak the numbers a bit to bring in extra revenue. Bruce James: Maybe it is worth taking a look at.

Mark Anderson, University North Colorado: Wanted clarification on the GAO report mentioned this morning. Bruce James: Congress has asked GAO in conjunction with GPO to look at some of the factors surrounding government printing and information dissemination. Some of those factors involve GPO, some involve the FDLP and some involve agencies. Attempting to see where government printing is actually taking place.

How much is coming through GPO? How much is going around GPO? Look at the changing requirements of agencies. What the printing requirements of agencies will be? GPO had a hand in planning and GPO is getting good support out of GAO. Thinks they really are trying to help us as best they can as they respond to the request of Congress. GPO will learn things about operations and about its customers. Mark Anderson: Is GAO looking at revenue enhancement? Bruce James: GAO is not looking at revenue enhancement – Mark Anderson: Would you expect the GAO representatives to share with us in St. Louis. Judy Russell: GAO representatives are here at this meeting. They have had a focus group. They are observing as well as interacting with the community.

Rich Gause, University of Central Florida: What constitutes a version that might be retained, in terms of a monographic report? If it has been 3 months, a corrected document may not need to be retained. If it has been 10 years, and there have been policy changes and/or changes due to research, then it may need to be retained: process documents like laws and regulations, where as it moves through the process each version of the bill becomes valuable in terms of looking back at it. The interim materials are things like daily and weekly reports that are cumulated at the end of the year, insuring that those daily or weekly figures are retained for continuing access to those smaller time periods. Data bases, data changing, where it is updated on a regular basis with the last 10 years’ worth of data with actual figures and estimates for the next 5 years. Researchers need access to these estimates because they need to see how accurate these estimates were. Need to ensure access to those estimates. Asks Council are there other items that need to be identified. Bruce James: You are going in exactly the right direction. This is exactly what we need to be doing.

Tim Byrne, University of Colorado: In the hall we have two publishers trying to get us to pay for the Serial Set. Competition has good points and bad points. There is duplication. What troubles me is competition between two government agencies. What we are talking about here with GPO looking at creating revenues with the creation of electronic products is going to put competition with NTIS at a higher level. NTIS when they get in competition they are more desperate because they have to sell to continue to exist. In the past NTIS has undercut the prices at GPO. We need to include them in the discussion. Bruce James: Good point, I have been out to visit them.

Jill Vassilakos-Long, California State University – San Bernardino: On version control, even if a document is only a few days old when it is changed or corrected, would like to see GPO bring back errata sheets. To do an electronic errata thing like "It used to say this; we corrected it." Even if it has been up 10 minutes someone will quote it. After it is corrected, if someone goes back to check, it will look like as if it were misquoted. That is not right and it is not fair. The whole concept of errata sheets worked in paper and it is time to bring that into the electronic age.

Deborah Mongeau, University of Rhode Island: Struck by how everyone is talking about government information as one size fits all. It is not that way, we have monographs, databases, serials, etc. All of this information is structured differently. It has different costs in producing it and it has different uses by the end user. We need different models for different types of materials and different users. Two tiers of information but terms of licensing structures that would be tailored to other users. We need to look for a model that will take us through the next 10, 20, 30 years. Bruce James: We are not talking about something will last us the next 5 minutes but something that will last. How do we organize this material so we can take it forward regardless of the technology for the next 100 or 200 years.

Judy Russell, Superintendent of Documents: It is my privilege to announce the Federal Depository of the Year Award. Last spring we announced that we were establishing a Federal Depository of the Year award because we recognize that Federal depository libraries invest significant time and resources in their public services.

The award is intended to provide special recognition for a library that furthers the goals of the program by insuring that the American public has free access to its government information in the following ways:

• outstanding service to meet Federal Government information needs in the library service area,

• creativity and innovation in developing specific community programs for the use of Federal Government information or a dramatic increase in their community use of Federal Government information, and

• leadership in creating public service programs that can be emulated by other Federal depository libraries.

This morning it gives me great pleasure to announce that the Tulsa City-County Library is the first library to be recognized as the Federal Depository Library of the Year. (Library Director Linda Saferite, and Suzanne Sears, depository librarian, were presented to the audience.)

This library has been embracing new technology in its online efforts to make public access to government information more accessible. We are very impressed by the library’s commitment to using the Internet and outside the box techniques to better serve the needs of the public. Not only is your library moving forward, introducing information access options, but you have also substantially increased circulation at the same time, and your staff has many effective programs for outreach to the public and you also serve as a liaison for local community officials. (Bruce James and Judy Russell presented a certificate to Linda Saferite and Suzanne Sears.)

Linda Saferite, Director, Tulsa City-County Library: Thank you, we are so honored and to be the first library selected is so sweet. Our collection may be small but we maximize every bit of it. Suzanne Sears sees her work as a calling. It is easy for her to be one of the future-thinking librarians who pushes the envelope, adapts quickly and develops new ways to fulfill her mission, connecting people and public information. Thank you.

Meeting began with a reminder concerning the Federal Depository Library of the Year Award ceremony to be held that evening from 7:30 to 9:00. Dan Barkley announced that the deadline for anyone wishing to get facts and recommendations to Bruce James would be December 1, 2003.

Council committees reported on their afternoon meetings. The Operations committee suggested a possible resolution on the electronic substitutions list. The Education and Preservation committee wrote a draft resolution in support of the ARL prospectus. Barbie Selby noted that there were several burning issues, but that these could be addressed in a report rather than requiring a resolution. Council agreed that the issues before Council required a report rather than a recommendation, and Michele stressed that information on these reports should appear on the Council recommendations Web page.

Council discussed Bruce James’ request for advice from the Depository Library Community on revenue generation for the GPO sales operation. Major points from the discussion include: Council must continue to stress the core values of the Federal Depository Community; Council needs additional feedback from the community to address the issues; the morning session was brain storming, and suggestions need to be carefully examined before any recommendations are made; some concern was expressed over any implication that libraries should assist GPO in the actual sale of information; the need for sustainability, and T.C. Evans provided a brief history of the sales program. T.C. also noted that the sales program has been losing ten million dollars per year for the last six years.

Council established four writing teams and established some initial parameters for the reports.

1. Revenue – Barbie Selby /chair, John Graham, and John Kavaliunas, Michele McKnelly
2. Version/authentication – Duncan Aldrich /chair, Barbara Ford, Chuck Eckman, Lynn Siemers
3. Legacy/digitization – Laura Saurs /chair, Mary Prophet, Cheryl Malone, Dan Barkley
4. Carrots/Barnacles – Paul Arrigo /chair, John Phillips, Doris Helfer

The meeting concluded with an extended discussion on the creation of a Web-based survey for input from the community on the four issues to be covered by the writing groups.

Options for the Council Survey were investigated and plans for the survey were finalized.

Council began with a review of work to be done by the writing groups and group chairs were asked to integrate their work with the documents to come out of the visioning process.

There was a brief discussion of the essential titles list and titles suggested for digitization. The next step in this process is to compile, rank and submit both the essential titles list and the suggestions for digitization to the committee for review.

John Philips was elected Chair of Council for the 2004/2005 term.

Judy Russell: Apologized to Council for the surprise topic on revenue enhancements in Bruce James’s address. This was a topic GPO has been talking about internally. Bruce James said, "I don’t want to bring other groups in until you all have set the boundaries." He is looking for a healthy income stream because the sales program has in the past supported the revolving fund. He is concerned that GPO will always be behind on technology because they will have to go back to Congress for the funds.

The question is how can GPO increase the income stream without endangering the FDLP. There is no point in developing a wonderful economic model if it doesn’t fly with the depository librarians--it will crash and burn. It was suggested that Council needs to understand Bruce James style. He likes to be provocative; he feels that he will get a more honest reaction. He has established very wide parameters for the development of a business model, and is hoping that the community will set the boundaries for the income stream a bit further out than the boundaries implied in conversations with GPO staff and others. If there is an economic value if you are not a depository, it is very easy to establish the value of being a depository library.

Michele pointed out that Council had never before been asked for advice on the sales program.

Judy Russell: The lines between sales and the FDLP have blurred. The revenue model has been changed because of the decisions that have been made on the depository model. GPO needs to redefine the lines. By the current pattern, public access has been dramatically improved, but the program has been damaged because we have lessened the visual value of the program.

The remainder of the discussion focused on the changing nature of the program and the concern expressed by Chuck Eckman that technology changes so quickly that we could unnecessarily restrict either public access or the business model.

Council broke into working groups.

Chairman Dan Barkley thanked the attendees for remaining for the closing session. He noted that from 1988 to the present he could not recall a time when Council did not put forth some recommendation. This Council meeting was spent working on the charge put forth by Bruce James. Chairman Barkley called the attention of the audience to the drafts produced by Council writing groups and outlined Council’s proposed work schedule for the next few weeks. The deadline for the final documents is December 1, 2003. Council should have rewritten versions of the Envisioning documents ready by ALA. Chairman Barkley informed the audience that an announcement for comments on the working documents from Council would be sent out in the next few days and requested their response.

John Phillips announced that the report on the regional meeting should also be out by December 1, 2003.

Chairman Barkley thanked Bruce James for his generation of some frank discussion over the past couple of days, Bruce James and GPO for the Library of the Year Award and the reception & ceremony Tuesday night, Bruce James for bringing Council in on the planning process in a collaborative partnership. He asked GPO staff to stand and thanked them for all of their efforts to make the conference a success. GPO staff was warmly applauded. Thanked audience for its diligence and hard work.

The meeting adjourned at 2:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted:

Mary Prophet
Secretary