Newsgroups: bit.listserv.pacs-l
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 08:11:08 CDT
From:         Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <LIBPACS@UHUPVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      A-130: TAP Comments, Pt. 2 of 2

From:         James P Love <LOVE@PUCC>
Subject:      A-130;  TAP comments, Pt. 2 of 2

7.   CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ARE IMPORTANT, AND SHOULD BE ADDRESSED IN
     A-130

        Many agencies contract out data processing services to firms
that sell agency information to citizens.  Conflicts of interest abound.
Frequently the contractor has an interest in restricting public access
to the agency information systems, so the contractor can sell the data
through its own retail outlets.  For example:

     -    Mead Data Central will receive $13.5 million from the SEC to
          provide online full text searching of the EDGAR database
          system.  Mead is also the SEC subcontractor in charge of
          providing public access to the EDGAR database.  But since Mead
          wants to sell SEC information to the public through its own
          LEXIS service, it has restricted public access to taxpayer
          financed EDGAR system.

     -    Westlaw has a contract to create a digital version of federal
          caselaw for the Justice Department's JURIS online database
          system.  But Westlaw wants to sell the public those same
          records thought its own high priced online service, and it has
          obtained a contact that restricted public access to the
          Department of Justice's very important JURIS system.  In doing
          so Westlaw has not only denied the taxpayers access to an
          important government database, but it has also prevented rival
          database vendors from obtaining the JURIS database in order to
          compete with Westlaw and Lexis, the two firms that currently
          enjoy a duopoly in the market for online access to federal
          legal opinions.

     A-130 should address these types of agreements, instructing
agencies to insure that private contractors do not use federal data
processing contracts to obtain unfair advantages over their rivals, or
to deny the public access to information and information systems that
they have already paid for through taxes.

8.   HIGH PRICES FOR INFORMATION PRODUCTS AND SERVICES CREATES LARGE
     DISPARITIES BETWEEN CITIZENS BASED UPON THEIR ABILITY TO PAY

     The Taxpayer Assets Project is a nonprofit organization with a
small budget.  We simply cannot afford to buy many of the commercial
services that provide access to government databases. The groups that
are most able to afford these expensive services are those with large
financial interests in narrow aspects of government policy.  For
example, most pharmaceutical firms have armies of lawyers, lobbyists and
policy analysts who can afford to monitor every actions of the FDA, PTO,
NIH, Congress and other government agencies, not to mention their
private sector rivals. When access to government information is rationed
according to willingness to pay, we find ourselves at an enormous
disadvantage.  Not only do the pharmaceutical companies have the
resources to finance congressional and presidential campaigns, to dangle
high paying jobs to former government officials, and to vastly outstaff
groups that represent consumers and taxpayers, but they also are the
only ones who can afford to use the databases that are funded by the
taxpayers.  This scenario, repeated throughout the government, is among
the reasons that special interest groups can manipulate and control the
government, at the expense of the broader public interest.

     A-130 should instruct agencies to consider the impact of
information management policies on the prices that consumers will pay
for access to taxpayer funded information resources.  For example, if an
agency can produce CD-ROM products for $35 or less, why should citizens
be required to pay $500 to $10,000 to buy the information from
commercial vendors?  Likewise, if it costs between $15 and $35 an hour
to provide online access to the PTO's APS, why should citizens be forced
to pay $340 per hour to receive the same information through Lexis?

     Agencies should avoid policies that deliberately restrict public
access to taxpayer funded information systems in order to bolster the
business interests of commercial vendors, since this leads to even
greater concentrations of political power.  Low cost access to
government information is needed to strengthen citizen involvement in
government policy making.


9.   OMB'S PROPOSED LIMITS ON PRICES FOR INFORMATION PRODUCTS AND
     SERVICES ARE NEEDED

     Among the best features of the proposed A-130 revision are the
provisions that would limit agency prices for information products and
services to the costs of dissemination.  This is sorely needed.


10.  AGENCIES ARE USING NTIS TO RAISE PRICES FOR INFORMATION PRODUCTS
     AND SERVICES FAR ABOVE DISSEMINATION COSTS

     Many agencies now have contracts that give NTIS exclusive rights to
sell information at prices that far exceed dissemination costs.  For
example, the Federal Reserve sells its "bank call" reports on magnetic
tape for $560 per quarter. Information from the Home Mortgage Disclosure
Act (HMDA) is also very expensive.  OMB should clarify an agency's
responsibility to provide access to information at cost, when NTIS is
simultaneously selling the information at huge markups.  This is an
enormous issue, given the large and rapidly growing electronic
collections that NTIS currently manages.


11.  THE FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO A
     TECHNOLOGICAL SUNSET

     The federal Depository Library Program (DLP) provides 1,400
libraries with free access to federal information.  This program, which
has been around since the middle of the 19th century, is not a welfare
program.  It serves scholars, business persons, and many others who need
access to federal information.

     We frequently use federal depository libraries.  We cannot afford
to buy all the government publications that we use, but even when prices
are not an issue, we rely upon the library staff's expertise and
indexing resources to discover publications that may be useful to us.
The fact that information is disseminated in electronic formats should
not eliminate an agency's responsibility to this important program.



12.  ACCEPTING PUBLIC COMMENTS VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

     OMB deserves a pat on the back for its efforts in using electronic
mail networks such as the Internet to disseminate information about the
proposed changes in the Circular, and to receive comments by electronic
mail.  These steps will broaden public awareness of the Circular, and
allow a wider group of citizens to participate in the debate.  We urge
OMB to address this issue in the final draft of A-130.  That is, OMB
should encourage all federal agencies to use electronic mail networks to
disseminate public notices *and* to accept public comments.  It is
particularly appropriate here, when many citizens who are interested in
government information policy have access to such networks.  Of course,
these efforts should supplement and not replace other methods of
providing public notice and accepting comments.
------------------------------------------------------------------
James Love, Director               VOICE:    215-658-0880
Taxpayer Assets Project            FAX:      call
12 Church Road                     INTERNET: love@essential.org
Ardmore, PA  19003

End of Part 2 of 2
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU