Approved-By:  RAED@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.govdoc-l
Date:         Fri, 11 Dec 1992 11:15:52 CST
From:         "Stephen M. Hayes (219) 239-5268"
              <LTPYWS%IRISHMVS.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
Subject:      DRAFT INDIGO RESPONSE

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
INDIGO IS THE INDIANA DEPOSITORY/DOCUMENTS GROUP.  PLEASE REMEMBER
THAT THE FOLLOWING IS A DRAFT!!!
........................................................................
Please reply to:    Andrea Singer
                    INDIGO Chair 1992/93
                    Documents Department
                    Indiana University Libraries
                    Bloomington IN 47405

                                        November 29, 1992

Dear    :

We are writing to you on behalf of the Indiana Network for
Documents and Information of Government Organizations
(INDIGO) to express our concern and apprehension over
actions being taken by the U.S. Government Printing Office
(GPO) and their effects upon us as a selective depository
library within the Federal Depository Library Program. At  a
special emergency meeting of the Indiana Depository
Libraries it was concluded that the GPO's proposal,
expressed in their letter dated November 18, 1992, will
adversely affect access to federal government information
by users in the congressional district and state including
businesses, consumers, and the general citizenship including
many faculty and students. Therefore, I, on behalf of the
INDIGO membership, am requesting your help in preventing the
further erosion and elimination of access to government
information

For fiscal year (FY) 1993, GPO prepared a budget of $32.5
million to maintain all of the operations of the Federal
Depository Library Program at the existing level of service
and choice of format.  However, they have been appropriated
$29 million, resulting in a shortfall of $3.5 million.  In
order to deal with this shortfall, GPO has sent a letter,
dated November 18, 1992, which spells out decisions that GPO
has made to change the formats and types of materials
available to depository libraries.  They include such things
as following:

1.  Asking libraries to change from paper copies to
microfiche their selection  of Congressional hearings and
committee prints, House and Senate reports and documents,
the daily Congressional Record, Monthly Catalog, and the
Code of Federal Regulations.

2.  Distributing the bound Treaties and Other International
Acts and the bound U.S. Congressional Serial Set  to
Regional depository libraries only.

3.  Distributing the U.S. Reports, House and Senate
Calendars, slip treaties, and slip Supreme Court opinions in
microfiche only to all depository libraries.

4.  Allowing only certain "core" publications that should
have been received, but were not,to be claimed, rather than
all missing pieces.

5.  Distributing the fiche collection of the Department of
Energy, and of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administrations to regional libraries only.

While we understand the concerns and problems being faced by
GPO, and am sympathetic to their plight, we are not
supportive of their solution I would ask that at a minimum
that GPO would extend the deadline for returning the survey
attached to the letter dated November 18, 1992 so as to
allow selectives and regionals the opportunity to discuss
and consider the impact of GPO's plan on their institutions
and users and that GPO be required to put a hold on the plan
outlined in the letter until the larger depository community
and other users have had adequate time to study the plan,
analyze its effects, and estimate the cost of such a plan to
the libraries.

First of all, it should noted that the letter from GPO dated
November 18 and postmarked November 25 had not yet been
received by most Indiana libraries by November 30.  Yet, we
are expected to respond by December 4, 1992 with a haste
extension to December 11, 1992.  We feel that GPO is trying
to hasten this proposal through before the new
administration takes over.  In addition, the time frame for
response is unrealistic and not conducive to thoughtful
consideration on the part of the depository libraries.  This
is further complicated in that regional depository libraries
received a different surveys than selectives, with unclear
and confusing instructions but again we are supposed to be
coordinating our responses with our regional.

Second, the vast majority of the materials that GPO is
asking to be received in microfiche only, or to go only to
regionals, are the core publications for many libraries.
These are also the same title to which the smaller
depositories and many public libraries often refer people to
the larger depositories to consult. While fiche distribution
may serve the letter of the depository law, the spirit of
the law requires that the information be usable to the
people within the congressional district.  To fully realize
the impact of this decision, please imagine your staff being
required to consult Congressional publications (e.g.
Congressional Record, all congressional reports and
documents, treaties, etc.) in fiche.  I suspect your staff
would not find this a suitable medium for use.  Yet, this is
exactly what is being proposed by GPO for the general users.
The fiche recommendation is further complicated by the
nature of the medium.  We in the Depositories are not
convinced that microfiche will remain readable for as long
as the paper versions.  The medium darkens and becomes
unreadable.

Another factor is that many Indiana libraries did not have
information in their libraries for a significant period of
time due to the GPO's dependance on microfiche.  In the
early 1980's several Indiana libraries, in cooperation with
GPO in an effort to cut costs, selected large segment of
information in fiche (i.e. hearings, committee prints,
reports and documents).  Due to a problem with the fiche
contractor, which is not solely GPO's fault, we did not
receive any fiche for three years.  We are now just catching
up on fiche which should have been distributed in 1985-90.
I am reluctant to further depend on microfiche.

Third, the University of Notre Dame, Indiana University and
Purdue University are contractors for both the Department of
Energy and NASA. The fiche collections by these two agencies
will be limited to the Regional Library in Indianapolis.
While this will cut GPO's costs, it will hamper research at
the University and the access that local firms will have to
this information and increase costs to the Regional Library
for such expenses as fiche-to-fiche duplication.
Additionally, this will cause firms and the University to
spend contract dollars, either to Interlibrary Loan or to
purchase titles, for existing information which should
already be on site for their convenient use, rather then
spending these contract dollars on original research.  It is
ironic that while the DOE is exploring ways to increase the
use of their information, GPO is proceeding in the opposite
direction.  Of even  more significance is that this sets a
dangerous precedent in that GPO can now decide which library
will receive which classes of information.


Fourth, the libraries within Indiana has been fiscally
responsible in that we have attempted to cooperate within
the state so as to make the most economical user of limited
resources while at the same time maintaining the best
available service for our users.  We are tremendously
concerned with the preservation aspects of the proposal in
addition to the usability question.  Microfiche and
similarly, electronic media, has unknown lifespan.  However,
it is opinion of many experts that the lifespan of these
media are far less then the lifespan of paper.  Therefore we
fear that in the name of fiscal responsibility, we are
placing within the depository libraries media which will not
last and be usable for future generations.

Therefore we are asking you as representatives if Indiana's
interests in the future to request GPO to: 1) extend the
deadline for returning the survey attached to the letter
dated November 18, 1992 so as to allow selectives, 2) put a
hold on the plan outlined in the letter until the larger
depository community and other users have had adequate time
to study the plan, analyze its effects, and estimate the
cost of such a plan to the libraries, 3) go back to Congress
with a supplemental appropriations request for FY 93 or
transfer funds from GPO's revolving fund to make up the
projected budget shortfall, and 4) to fully explore the uses
of electronic dissemination, including online, and through
the GPO bulletin Board and Department of Agriculture's CIDs
system,

     Finally, I am asking that you communicate with your
fellow congresspeople and House and Senate Subcommittees on
Legislative Appropriations requesting 1) full and adequate
funding for the depository program 2) support for GPO's
supplemental appropriations request to make up the shortfall
for this fiscal year (1993) and 3) funding for a study to
identify the proper levels of funding and media necessary to
carry out the depository library program as envisioned by
the various stakeholder (i.e. Congress, depository libraries
and the citizen users).

     I thank you for your attention in this important
matter.

Respectfully;








Andrea Singer                              Stephen M. Hayes
INDIGO Chair 1992/93            FEDeral Relations Committee
Documents Department                       Documents Center
Indiana University Libraries       University of Notre Dame
Bloomington IN 47405              Notre Dame, IN 46556-5629

cc:
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU