The Library Programs Service (LPS) has established a new email address, <lostdocs@gpo.gov>, for reporting fugitive documents. Previously the Electronic Documents Working Group and other members of the depository community sent all such notices to askLPS. The increasing volume of submissions to that location prompted the decision to separate the fugitive documents reports. This address, or its corresponding Web page, should be used to notify LPS of any fugitive documents, regardless of format. Fugitives are those documents of public interest or educational value, and not classified for reasons of national security, which have not been acquired for distribution to Federal depository libraries or disseminated through the Catalog of U.S Government Publications (CGP).

Some of them could be used in conjunction with depository library promotion efforts, in library newsletters, etc.

The following is a statement of the facts regarding the October 2001 request by the Superintendent of Documents to certain Federal depository libraries to withdraw from public circulation and destroy their depository copies of a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) CD-ROM providing information on water resources:

In partnership with Federal depository libraries, the GPO has been the Government's agent for providing public access to Government information for nearly two centuries. The GPO takes very seriously any Federal agency's request to restrict access to Government information that has been made public. However, the GPO also has a duty under the law to cooperate with Federal agencies in the appropriate distribution of the official information they publish. Since the September 11 attacks, the USGS CD-ROM is the only document that the Superintendent of Documents has requested to be withdrawn from depository libraries. Any future agency withdrawal requests will be handled in accordance with law and established policy.

American Library Association Midwinter Conference

January 2002

Because of the high quality of work performed by submitters, many of these titles have been added to the collection with minimal effort. Other submissions, mostly serials, take more time. I do not have an exact figure on the number of titles that have been cataloged and added to the collection, but most of the work that has been submitted has been done. We appreciate these efforts and believe that efforts by the fugitives groups are of significant value to the Federal Depository Library Community.

Now for some seriously bad news. As reported at last ALA, we have lost 30% of our cataloging staff to higher graded positions, particularly at the Library of Congress. Since ALA, we have lost two-thirds of our Cataloging Branch supervisory staff. Both these losses have a significant adverse effect on our ability to discover, catalog, and archive resources. Our production figures have decreased in proportion to the decrease in staff.

What may not be clearly understood is that in the online environment in which we work, discovery of resources, cataloging of resources, and archiving of resources are one and the same. Without cataloging, works are not brought into the FDLP Electronic Collection. This is because our catalogers must discover work for themselves, evaluate the work for suitability for the collection, classify it, catalog it, assign a PURL for persistent access, take people to the right "page", and archive the resource for the collection.

Given this complex level of work and the need to make many decisions concerning a single resource, a lack of sufficient catalogers means that our FDLP Electronic Collection is not growing anywhere near the pace with which agencies are publishing. If we do not act quickly to discover, catalog, and archive works (all done by catalogers) we may never know of the works that are taken from agency servers before they can be discovered.

Given the tremendous importance of cataloging online resources and the need for these resources to build a modern electronic collection, we are working very hard to recruit replacements to our lost staff. Unfortunately, we are losing staff to other Federal libraries with GS-12 positions, which offer considerably more pay that our GS-11 catalogers earn at GPO. This inequality of positions and incomes is creating a serious crisis for the future of the FDLP Electronic Collection.

Our need to continually recruit personnel has an adverse impact on production because, for the first year after people are recruited, production decreases. This decrease occurs because our experienced catalogers must train new catalogers.

What is more troubling, however, is that we expect to lose more catalogers to other Federal libraries with higher grades. We also expect that several of our most experienced and productive catalogers will retire sometime this year. What is most troubling of all, however, is that it is becoming extremely difficult to recruit people to become catalogers. At the present time, we have only fourteen catalogers. I hope that we will be able to recruit several people sometime this year but expect that, if we do so, these gains will be offset by more defections to other Federal agencies and/or by retirements.

Be assured that I am working very hard to hire two section chiefs and as many catalogers as I can recruit. I am also continuing with efforts to make our best case for position upgrades. Position upgrades should solve most of the problems we have.

Again, I am very sorry that I am unable to attend. Your meetings are very important to me and I hope that I will be able to meet with you during ALA Annual. Best wishes for a successful meeting.

Thomas A. Downing

Chief, Cataloging Branch

Library Programs Service

January 17, 2002

Summary 2001 Fall Meeting

October 14-17, 2001

Alexandria, VA

Council Members present:

Robert A. Hinton, Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis and Sharon A. Hogan, University of Illinois at Chicago were excused.

Chair Andrea Sevetson welcomed everyone and had the Council members and audience introduce themselves. The new Council class was encouraged to spend some time together to bond.

Mr. Buckley expressed Mr. DiMario’s regrets that, due to another commitment, he could not be there but he would be there for the plenary session on Monday. He gave a report on the status of GPO. He indicated this is a "strange time" for GPO not only because of the September 11 tragedy but also because of the lack of any transition activities yet. There still has been no announcement regarding a new Public Printer or Superintendent of Documents. With the lack of a Joint Committee on Printing (JCP) there have been a number of holdups, since JCP has certain responsibilities in terms of operational activities within GPO. A number of things are pending due to the lack of purchase abilities, including the authorization for major purchases and labor contracts. Mr. DiMario has had to approve a number of things as administrative actions to keep things going.

He indicated that printing is down; the number of new tangible publications is down; and because of a loss of staff, the intake and cataloging of electronic documents is also down.

The recent article in American Libraries ("Government Documents at the Crossroads" by Karrie Peterson, Elizabeth Cowell and Jim Jacobs, American Libraries, September 2001, p. 52-55) raised some good questions about the preservation of electronic information, but the authors didn’t acknowledge the work that GPO has done or look at GPO’s relationship or communication with the various communities related to this. Gil Baldwin and George Barnum have written an article in response for American Libraries ("Government Documents for the Ages," December 2001, p. 38.)

Council members asked questions regarding the status of the budget and the Public Printer and Superintendent of Documents appointments. Mr. Buckley indicated the final budget has not been passed yet but that either the House or Senate version would be a good increase over last year. He also stated that no word has been received on the appointments and it was likely that there would not be any nominations until next year.

Operations Committee – Linda Fredericks reported there were no pressing concerns to report. The same problems as always still exist, some shipments are still late or don’t arrive but there doesn’t seem to be a pattern. Concern has been expressed about GPO’s lack of timely review of the self-studies. Robin Haun-Mohamed indicated that due to the loss of inspectors, they are making progress but are still backlogged and have not requested any new self-studies since 1998. No new self-studies will be requested until next year.

Cataloging and Locator Committee – Dena Hutto also indicated there was nothing new to report. Episodic concerns appear on GOVDOC-L about the ability to share cataloging information with GPO. Overtures regarding shared cataloging initiatives have not been favorably received by GPO.

Communication Committee – Charlene Cain, reporting for Sharon Hogan, indicated nothing new seems to have come out of the GAO study. Mr. Buckley indicated there has been no action; comments were sent back to GAO and GPO has not heard anything back, but that was expected, and the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) report on NTIS has been overtaken by the recent terrorist events.

Concern was expressed about the taking down of web pages with documents considered a threat to national security. This will need to be monitored.

Preservation Committee – Cathy Hartman reported the committee had been charged with looking into the issues associated with Recommendation #4 from Fall 2000. The group had decided to investigate 4 models related to the issues of preservation of electronic information. The models evaluated were: LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe), the National Library of Canada Electronic Collection, the National Library of Australia’s PANDORA Project and the Texas Electronic Depository Project. A handout evaluating and comparing these models was given out.

It is likely the new "Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies" issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will also have an impact on this topic.

Permanent Public Access – John Stevenson reported there had not been a meeting since May 21, 2001 and there was nothing scheduled for the immediate future. Mr. Buckley gave a brief overview of this group for the new members.

Council reviewed GPO’s responses to the Spring Recommendations.

Paul Arrigo asked about the status of the GPO’s acquisition of an Integrated Library System (ILS). Gil Baldwin responded that they were in the early part of the process and were still collecting input from the community. The government’s procurement process is very complicated.

Paul Arrigo, Daniel C. Barkley, Charlene C. Cain, Barbara J. Ford, Linda Fredericks, Cathy Nelson Hartman, Dena Hutto, John C. Kavaliunas, Greta E. Marlatt, Mary Redmond, Andrea Sevetson, Roberta Shaffer, and John A. Stevenson.

The Honorable Patricia S. Ticer, Virginia State Senator, welcomed conference attendees and encouraged everyone to explore the fine city of historic Alexandria.

Robin Haun-Mohamed, Chief, Depository Services Branch, welcomed everyone and thanked them for their perseverance and willingness to attend despite the recent tragedies. She provided logistic details for the conference, gave the traditional statistical count, welcomed the newest depository libraries and encouraged everyone to network.

Andrea Sevetson, Council Chair, called the meeting to order. She asked Council members to introduce themselves. She thanked Robin Haun-Mohamed and Willie Thompson for their efforts in organizing a wonderful conference. She conducted the usual "Council Aerobics" including asking people to stand based on the time zone they were from and asked GPO staff members to introduce themselves.

John Stevenson gave an overview of the Sunday night Council working session.

Mr. DiMario welcomed and complimented everyone for having the courage to come despite recent events. GPO’s desire to hold the meeting was paramount and in accordance with President Bush’s wishes that we not let the terrorist acts stop us as a nation.

Mr. DiMario gave a quick update regarding the status of his appointment and the lack of any new information as to whom the White House plans to nominate to the Public Printer position. Various names have been floated but nothing definitive.

He also gave an overview of the effect of the changes in Majority and Minority positions in the Senate due to the shifting of party affiliation by one member. This shift affects oversight roles and specifically the appointment of the Joint Committee on Printing (JCP). The Senate finally put together a Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) to name people to the JCP and a new committee appears to have been appointed and will meet in the near future. There are a number of things that require their approval.

The appropriations bill, while not complete yet, looks like it will be very favorable. The GPO should get close to level funding. Current funding is from continuing resolutions until the new appropriation budget is passed.

He thanked everyone and their institutions for "carrying the day in keeping the program alive and well."

Diane Eidelman, Suffolk Cooperative Library System, NY asked if GPO could give an idea of what percentage of congressional hearings are online.

TC Evans answered no.

Jim Veatch, Library HQ, asked if, given the recent decision by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to pull their web site, and since GPO is archiving it, do they have a provision for retaining the information.

Mr. Buckley responded that there was no policy in place yet; but it is being worked on.

Ellen Sweet, National Library of Education, asked how a library can learn about and get hard copies of publications when FDLP is only distributing an electronic copy.

TC Evans pointed to the new listservs as a means of communicating. These will include the 6 most commonly requested SBs (Subject Bibliographies). Subscribers would be notified of new publications and have the ability to order them online.

Duncan Aldrich, University of Nevada, Reno asked about the mirror sites for GPO Access: what is currently used and what are the "regional offices" TC Evans mentioned in his talk.

TC Evans responded they have multiple copies in the main building and elsewhere. They want to get a more geographically separate backup completely away from the DC area.

Kay Collins, University of California, Irvine inquired about the future of the GPO Access gateways.

TC Evans’ response was that the local levels know their constituency so some are configuring a more tailored "GPO access" but it’s a value judgment each site will need to make.

Ursula Ann Ward, Metro Library System, Oklahoma City, OK asked if there would be future improvements in the Commerce Business Daily.

Bernadine Abbot Hoduski, Government Information Advisor, expressed concern about the need for multiple formats. The National Libraries are not getting paper copies and she would like to see a policy developed that would ensure the National Libraries would get multiple formats.

Fran Buckley commented that when a print order is received from an agency for material that GPO is not going to distribute in paper to depositories, they still ride the contract to get enough copies to cover the "by law" distribution. Therefore those agencies are getting their print copies – but they aren’t necessarily keeping them. Library of Congress, for example, doesn’t want them all.

Susan Tulis, Southern Illinois University, asked who was going to run the Fed Biz Opps and would there be free access.

TC Evans responded it would be run by the General Services Administration (GSA) and he didn’t know if it would be free although it currently is free.

Nan Myers, Wichita State University, asked 2 questions. The first was regarding the response to Recommendation #4, cooperative cataloging. She felt the response was confusing and asked if there were plans to review it. Would a partnership possibly cause a greater backlog?

Dena Hutto indicated there is an interest in finding ways to allow depository libraries to share with GPO and others. She encouraged those who were interested to attend the cataloging meeting.

Nan Myers second question was to ask if any thought had been given to new depository initiatives that would allow libraries to be virtual depository libraries only.

Robin Haun-Mohamed responded they had been approached by a couple of libraries and the only steps taken so far have been to open conversations.

Lori Smith, Southeastern Louisiana University, expressed concern about those paper items that are being superseded by electronic ones. We have not been given specific instructions that we can get rid of these. When should we get rid of those paper copies that have been superseded by electronic copies?

Julie Wallace, University of Minnesota, suggested we need to think about the "Monthly Catalog." Title 44 hasn’t changed and GPO has always cataloged government products not just depository ones. She would like to see GPO catalog things in the tangible format even when they are only distributing the publications electronically. Some libraries may still want to obtain hard copies and would still need SuDocs numbers so the paper copies can be shelved.

Tad Downing agreed that nothing has changed in Title 44. The mechanics are always open to discussion.

Jill Moriearty, University of Utah, commented on the superseded issue. She agreed that there are no guidelines and stressed that this is a growing issue.

Andrea Sevetson suggested to GPO that this might be an excellent topic for an upcoming meeting.

Jo Anne Beezley, Pittsburgh State University, KS, suggested putting stickers on the outdated paper items. In doing a review of their catalog she has noticed there are still a large number of brief records for microfiche and wondered what the status of getting full records was.

Tad Downing indicated there isn’t a great backlog of microfiche and asked that she or anyone else with the same concern give him the specific information.

Jill Vassilakos-Long, California State University, San Bernardino asked about the electronic archive – is there only one or do copies exist in other places?

GPO gave the same response as before, there is more than one but they need to move at least one to a location that is farther away.

Julie Wallace, University of Minnesota, spoke to the superseded issue and indicated we should be seeing a new superseded list soon. She suggested perhaps the introduction should address the policy of electronic versions of items.

Masako Yukawa, Long Island University, NY asked about the new workstation specifications, DVDs and the lack of ability to use some of them since her university is now on an NT system but some products require the use of an older operating system (e.g. Windows 95 or 98).

Gil Baldwin indicated that the GPO looks at what the current state of the art is and tries to be compatible with that, plus GPO does not control the specifications the agencies choose to put on their products, and sometimes they are not compatible with the hardware. GPO would appreciate information about those specific problems.

Robin Haun-Mohamed indicated this compatibility problem is specific to some Census products, and the Census Bureau is looking to see if there is an NT (operating system) they can use.

Nan Myers, Wichita State University, asked if there was a reasonable explanation regarding the discrepancies between the number of records in the Monthly Catalog and the Monthly Catalog production database.

Tad Downing replied that a distinction needs to be made – there really are no missing records from what people get from their tape loads. The missing records, and there are not thousands of them, are the records that are not in the Catalog of Government Publications at the website, and this goes back to the "tortured data processing." They have reviewed their procedures and now have new ones in place where they check their records against OCLC and what is on the website so please let him know of the problem records.

Cindi Wolff, University of Wisconsin, inquired about the security of backups and if this is an argument for or against electronic distribution of information.

Gil Baldwin asked Council to look at the issues associated with the scheduling of Council meetings, specifically the need to make time for new Council members to have time to tour GPO without it interfering with Council working time. A discussion ensued.

Council also began discussion on possible recommendations and action items and assigned them to specific committees.

The Committees and Working Groups then broke up and met throughout the rest of the afternoon.

(see Conference Proceedings for presentations)

George Barnum, Electronic Collection Manager, gave Council an overview of the CORC interface and how it works. He also discussed PDI (Personal Data Interchange) and what it does and does not do. It isn’t like creating a bibliographic record and is not used for retrieval purposed but rather is metadata that will be placed in the digital archive along with the digital object. It indicates when the item was created, how, by whom, when it is modified and by whom. They have been able to stay on schedule pretty well so far and February 2002 is a solid date for implementation of Phase 2.

Council members worked on writing the various recommendations, commendations and action items.

Council reviewed the various recommendations and talked about the need for more revisions to the Council Manual. Chair Sevetson will work with the incoming Chair on this. The need for a possible meeting "lessons learned" or "after action" report was discussed so things could be passed on for the next meeting and hopefully eliminate the same problems occurring again. One item learned from this meeting was that our spontaneous decision to find other rooms for smaller breakout groups cost GPO extra money.

Nominations were accepted for the next Chair. Paul Arrigo nominated Charlene Cain and this was seconded by Roberta Shaffer. Greta Marlatt nominated Cathy Hartman and was seconded by Dena Hutto. Cathy Hartman was the winner by vote.

Committee make up is as follows:

Electronic Preservation
Paul Arrigo – Chair
Dan Barkley
John Stevenson
Greta Marlatt

Depository Operations
Linda Fredericks - Chair
Dan Barkley – Chair Elect
Charlene Cain
Bob Hinton
Mary Redmond

Communications & Information Exchange
Sharon Hogan – Chair
Charlene Cain – Chair Elect
John Kavaliunas
Barbara Ford
Roberta Shaffer

Cataloging
Dena Hutto - Chair
John Stevenson
Paul Arrigo

Council discussed various ways to improve sessions for the future, including the kinds of documents we want to have in the packet. Listed were: Council Membership, Council Committees, the recommendations, responses, commendations and action items from the previous meeting, any appropriate older working documents, as well as a call to Council for other articles and documents to bring.

Chair Sevetson brought the session to order and thanked attendees for staying for the final session. She thanked the secretary and announced that Cathy Hartman would be the new Chair in Fall 2002. Council members then read the recommendations, commendations and action items (Administrative Notes, v. 22, # 17, 12/15/01) and then entertained questions from the audience.

Mr DiMario made some closing remarks. He thanked Council for their hard work and the audience for their participation.

Chair Sevetson gave some final thanks to Willie Thompson and Robin Haun-Mohamed for all their efforts for bringing the meeting together and to Mr. DiMario and Mr. Buckley for all their support and for listening to Council.

Dan Barkley complimented Andrea for all her efforts.

Meeting adjourned.

Respectfully Submitted,

Greta E. Marlatt
Council Secretary