X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL16]
Approved-By:  "(Duncan Aldrich)" <duncan@EQUINOX.UNR.EDU>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.govdoc-l
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 08:50:18 GMT
From:         "(Duncan Aldrich)" <duncan@equinox.unr.edu>
Subject:      Council Minutes
Comments: To: govdoc-l@psuvm.bitnet

Forwarded message:

From LISTSERV@PSUVM.PSU.EDU  Mon Nov  9 09:39:43 1992
Message-Id: <9211091719.AA24351@uva.pcmail.Virginia.EDU>
From: "Susan E. Tulis" <set7c@uva.pcmail.Virginia.EDU>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 12:18:52 EST
X-Pcmail-Return-Receipt-Requested: set7c
X-Mailer: UVa PCMail 1.7.1
To: govdoc-l%psuvm.BITNET@Virginia.EDU
Subject: Council Minutes
Cc: set7c@uva.pcmail.Virginia.EDU

Here is the longer official version of the Council minutes.

                      Summary, Fall Meeting
                   Depository Library Council
                         Washington, DC
                       October 19-20, 1992


Monday, October 19, 1992

The Fall 1992 Depository library Council (DLC) meeting was held
Oct 19-20, 1992 in Room LM-407 of the Library of Congress Madison
Building.  All fifteen members of the Council were in attendance:
Gary Cornwell, Chair, Susan Tulis, Secretary, Sandy Morton-
Schwalb, Robert Oakley, Mark Vonderhaar, Miriam Drake, Beth
Duston, Kay Schlueter, Richar Varn, John Weiner, William Cassell,
William Ellis, Carol Gordon, Judith Rowe, and Jack Sulzer.

Monday morning was an informal preparatory session for Council
consisting of updates from Superintendent of Documents, Wayne
Kelley, Jr. and Judy Russell, Director, Library Program Service
(LPS).  Before the updates, Gary Cornwell, DLC Chair, announced
that Council had revised its charter to bring it more in line
with what Council is actually doing.  It will be available to the
public once it is finalized.  He also announced that Beth Duston
had been elected Chair-Elect of the Council.  Mr. Kelley spoke
about the changes in the Sales Program and the Depository Library
Program (DLP) that are currently going on.  During his tenure at
GPO so far, Mr. Kelley has learned there are many dedicated and
capable people within GPO; that the environment around us is
changing and creating new demands, some of which are conflicting;
there is stiff competition for scarce taxpayers dollars as well
as limited GPO resources; and he concluded that the programs
under his supervision needed to manage change, not react to it.
Decisions need to be made in the best interests of the most
people, not because of a complaint.  Not only have his five top
managers accepted the responsibilities of new jobs, he has asked
a dozen mid-level managers to take on new assignments.  These
mid-level managers have been asked to take a fresh and
inquisitive eye to their areas of new responsibilities to look
for ways to improve their performance.  First, they will review
the areas of operations under them for strengths and weaknesses;
look for productive areas and roadblocks; look at finances,
resources, staff levels and the skills of their staff.  Second,
they will examine organizational values (the unwritten rules by
which the government does business) to determine which rules
should be kept, which should be changed and which should be
avoided because they are impossible to change.  Third, they will
create a vision of the future of what their operation should be
doing 2-3 years from now.  Finally, they will make the changes
necessary to make that vision a reality.  GPO managers will be
change sponsors, change agents, and supporters of change.  Mr
Kelley reminded us that change is painful and risky.  No one will
be asked to implement a change they oppose.  GPO's goal is to
improve their performance and to create an organization that will
serve the needs of the American public in the coming years.  In
many cases there will be no change.  GPO's purpose is to make its
operations better and Mr. Kelley encouraged us to let him now
when that is not happening.

Judy Russell spoke about the staff changes within LPS.  John
Beadle came in as Deputy Director, LPS, in January, primarily to
work with the microfiche backlog.  LPS is now shipping things
less than 60 days old.  Sheila McGarr was moved into Depository
Services, where her strengths and experiences will increase the
ombudsman role, whether or not LPS gets that position.  Sheila is
retraining the inspectors to answer more questions when out in
the field instead of having to compile a list of questions to
answer once returning to Washington, DC.  Gil Baldwin is heading
up a group tentatively called Administrative Services which will
be responsible for automation, but whose primary focus is on
understanding and managing financial resources.   Tad Downing
will bring a fresh look to Cataloging, and has been challenged to
have the Monthly Catalog (MoCat) do what the law says, that is,
put out records in the month that the publications are issued.
He is looking at cooperative cataloging, COSATI conversion, and
streamlining the kinds of records used MoCat, even if GPO has to
come back and finish them as full cataloging records for the
purposes of individual libraries' online catalogs.  Joe McClane
went to the documents area in Sales, to get come cross
fertilization between the two areas.  Laurie Hall is looking at
consolidating some of the cataloging and classification
functions, as well as focusing on full integration of ACSIS into
LPS activities.  Jane Bartlett has been moved to OEIDS where she
is still finishing up the pilot project evaluation report.

A comment was made that the community is concerned about these
changes, bordering on anger, and an inability to understand why
these changes have taken place.  GPO may need to do more PR on
this issue.  GPO did say that if these changes resulted in
operational problems then it is fair game for people to complain;
if it is a matter of personalities, then no.  The community has
to trust GPO's management decisions; GPO has to use their
managers where they think best.

Judy also gave an update on the tactical plans for implementing
GPO 2001.  Draft plans are due to the Public Printer by October
30, 1992.  Two of the tactical plans fall under Wayne's
supervision: one deals with looking at new electronic and print
on demand products and services to satisfy customer agency needs
and public desires; the other on development and implementation
of electronic capabilities to serve depository libraries,
focusing on dissemination responsibilities and product creation.
Judy outlined the key points of their plan (it will probably be
one combined plan):  a statement of purpose to identify types of
products, types of markets they are trying to serve, and areas of
emphasis to be concentrated on.  The statement of areas of
improvement becomes a task list of things to be accomplished.
They are also assembling a list of critical issues, constraints
and assumptions; a statement of method or approaches (strategy);
specified resources (staff, contracts) needed to commit in the
near term.  Procedures and methods for amending the plan are
being looked at; as well as developing a time frame for major
components.   Some of the critical events they see happening are:
getting a full staff of 23 for OEIDS; development of a bulletin
board; development of a specific product with one agency;
refining and improving the bulletin board; doing some market
studies - one on agency needs, one on user needs (contractual);
within a year have a prototype issue of a bimonthly electronic
initiatives newsletter which will highlight some of various
activities and opportunities taking place; movement towards
Internet connection no later than March 1993; working towards
agency partnership; improving order processing and delivery;
consolidated customer databases; a local LPS network in FY 94; a
preliminary edition of federal information directory (directory
of directories or directory of locator systems) by October 1993.
Initially they will look at a paper product with simultaneous
release on the Bulletin Board for the federal information
directory.  It may be a list of locator systems, and not
necessarily just electronic ones.  GPO does not have a tight
design for it yet.  GPO may use the Bulletin Board as a place to
maintain information about agency bulletin boards since this
information does appear in MoCat.

Lastly, Judy gave an update on GPO's budget situation.  Although
GPO has had increases in the dollar amount, there has been a
decrease in the amount of buying power.  The majority of the gap
has been filled in with microfiche.  GPO did a needs based budget
this year, rather than figuring out how to make do with what is
appropriated.  They came up with $32.5 million requirement and an
appropriation of $29.1 million.   Since printing and binding is
the largest portion of GPO's costs, substantive cuts will
probably come here.  GPO is considering a number of alternatives:
putting more things on microfiche, looking at things that might
be duplicative, looking at low content things (decals, posters,
forms, questionnaires, military based newsletters), looking at
less significant things they might avoid printing and
distributing so that more important and substantive things can
continue to flow.  GPO has had one meeting with JCP to discuss
the budget shortfall and another is scheduled.  Judy emphasized
the fact that with GPO's present resources there are real limits
on what they are able to do in terms of new initiatives when they
don't have resources to do what they are currently doing.  In
examining their financial commitments, they will probably break
even for FY 1989, but they envision a $1 million shortfall for FY
90.  Of the $29 million appropriated for FY 93, up to $2 million
can be used to pay for things that were delivered in 1993, but
ordered in 1989 or 1990.  So in reality, they don't have $29
million for 1993 publications.  GPO is trying to complete a
similar analysis for 91 and 92, but there are so many outstanding
jackets (orders) that it is hard to estimate.  A new system has
been put in place to get a cost estimate up-front on every jacket
as they ride it.  Judy figures that in a year they will be able
to look at a class number and tell you exactly how much it costs
them.  Remember, GPO cannot overspend their appropriation.  If
somebody prints through GPO and GPO doesn't have enough money,
GPO won't ride the order.  There are some things they don't ride
now, like military specifications, patents, etc.  In the past,
GPO has been fairly nondiscriminatory.  There is a difference
between what GPO would like to do and what they can afford to do.
At least GPO is better equipped to talk to the Appropriations
Committee than they have ever been; they have documented their
estimates, and the assumption is that GPO will be in better shape
next year once they have had a full year on the ACSIS system.

The formal meeting began Monday afternoon with opening remarks by
Public Printer Robert Houk.  He, too, talked about GPO's budget
situation.  While he is pleased that they received an increase in
the S&E budget, it is still short of their projected need.  They
have begun reviewing various concepts to optimize the utilization
of the budget resources they will have for 1993.  The
appropriations conference report requires the Superintendent of
Documents to conduct a study on the feasibility of disseminating
information in electronic formats.  In doing so, they are to
utilize the assistance of the Community College Distant Learning
Center in Owensboro, KY.  GPO was not provided additional funding
for this project.  Even though the WINDO/Gateway legislation
failed to pass, GPO is going to continuing in an electronic
direction.  They have incorporated the electronic direction into
their daily operation.  In the meantime, they have a lot of work
ahead of them.  GPO is beginning to evaluate how the depository
library program can or should be structured to accommodate these
methods.  It is not at all clear that the program structure
established 30 years ago is the best possible way to accommodate
electronic technology.  There have already been proposals to
restructure the program - Association of Research Libraries
(ARL), Informing the Nation, satellite transmission in GPO 2001.
Do these plans and concepts or other plans and concepts have
validity today from the point of view of the depository library
community?  He sees the questions Council will be considering
today as moving us into that arena.  The questions aren't meant
to be rhetorical or academic.  They are designed with the
practical purpose of transforming the DLP into an institution
that continues to meet its mission in an era of drastically
changing technology, limited funding, and increased public need.
Mr Houk doesn't foresee a single simple answer to the problem,
but there is every indication that the tools are available for
addressing the challenge that faces us.  Online technology,
networking, and eventually satellite technology offer growing
advantages for disseminating an increased amount of information
cost effectively.  CD-ROMs and a more judicious and effective
distribution of traditional formats offer significant
opportunities for economies in information distribution.  A
greater catalysis of service provision with non-government
entities, beginning with the current use of microfiche
contracting and possibly expanding in new directions, can be
explored for promoting information availability.  So the seeds of
reform are already there, what we want to discuss and nurture are
these ideas and others that Council brings to the table.  The
goal is to provide GPO with input that will be valuable to them
as they more forward to improving the DLP and the critically
important service it provides.

RESTRUCTURING OF THE DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM

Question #1 - Should there be a Depository Library Program in the
electronic age?  If so, how could the program be structured to
fit the realities of the current GPO budget?

If we are going to talk about restructuring, the first question
that needs to be asked is if there should be a program.  That
question is particularly relevant right now as technology is
changing because it is raising that question in very fundamental
ways.  Do we really need a program with the change to electronic?
OMB has not said that there needs to be a program in the
electronic age, whereas others have.  We have heard the following
thoughts expressed:  Do we need libraries if there is no longer
physical pieces?  Program would cost too much money.  GPO can't
do it.  Libraries have said they don't want it because they can't
afford it.

Some of the issues raised have been:  If we assume that the DLP
is sunsetting, do we want a program in the future?  What would be
the goals of such a program?  How ought there be a program, or
how would we design such a program?  We can start with the
assumption that there is a role for all the players, but we need
to define what GPO's role would be.

Goals of New Program

1.  Comprehensiveness of access - assume all the information is
available through the program.
2.  Librarians as key intermediaries - to provide meaning and
value to the information, as well as user training and user
assistance.
3.  Equity of access.
4.  Tactile nature and browsability of books in library.
5.  Library/librarians role in generational/transitional problem
with electronics.
6.  Broader vision - people come in looking for something
specific and find out about other government information.
7.  Electronic dissemination - opportunity for
economic/agency/staff efficiency; possibility of print on demand.
8.  Different levels of service in the program for different
access to data.  Is it possible that those who select electronic
products would have to provide higher level of service?  Would
some libraries cease to receive paper products? Responsibilities
and incentives for libraries in terms of their collection
development.
9.  During the period of transition, depository libraries provide
connectivity to network services, federal services, electronic
services that the general public won't have.  Local connectivity
is not going to be there for some time to come.
10.  Single point of access.
11.  Correlate distribution of resources.
12.  Electronic access can allow searching across different
datafiles (ie. WAIS).
13.  Still a need for paper products in electronic age.

Council members did not formally agree whether there should or
should not be a program, but since we came up with goals of such
a program, the underlying assumption is yes.  If we are going to
justify a program with a mixture of electronics, a point of
presence is needed and the passive access issue needs to be dealt
with.

The whole notion of depository was raised since some people think
is an outmoded word; it's not proactive.  Members of Council
could not come up with something to replace it.  However, the
question was asked if there shouldn't be a correlation between
allocation of resources and their use.  Is there a way to measure
this so you can get the most bang for the buck?  Does it make
sense to distribute material if it is not going to be used?  But
on the other hand, it may make sense to have something that is
very expensive even though it has limited use.  It was pointed
out that some questions are best answered by the agency, not a
depository library.  Maybe a service GPO could provide is making
librarians aware of what services the agencies have.  The list of
bulletin boards that GPO is compiling is a start in this
direction.  Electronic products are not necessarily better than
paper products and there is still a need for paper even in an
electronic age.

Arguments Against DLP in Electronic Age

1.  Many agencies are not willing to consign to GPO the
dissemination of their data.
2.  No one will ever give libraries enough money to make the kind
of system we would like a reality.
3.  Should there be a program if individuals can connect directly
to the information?
4.  Some people feel there is no legal authority for such a
program.
5.  GPO is unable or unwilling to carry out such a program
effectively.
6.  Libraries cannot afford the necessary hardware/software and
therefore would be unwilling partners in such a program.

Conclusion reached by the group was that this program has
continuing vitality and life even in the electronic age.

Question #2:  What are the goals and objectives of the Depository
Library Program?  Are these goals consistent with the member
institutions?  Are the depository libraries also meeting their
responsibility to serve the public?

The three major goals of the program as stated in Title 44 were
examined.  The first is that depository libraries shall be
located in each state and congressional district in order to make
government publications widely available.  Do congressional
districts provide the best framework for distributing information
to the public?  Is the physical location of a library important?
As congressional districts change, is there a way to consolidate
collections and/or share services and resources?  Thrust of the
change in the program has to come from the bottom up.  What
changes are they willing to make at the local level?  New
technology creates elitism.  How can access be equitable?  If
libraries limit access to faculty, staff and students, are these
institutions fulfilling their obligations as depository
libraries?  As Congressional districts change, libraries are
added to the system, but there is no mechanism for decreasing the
number of depository libraries, or denying a designation.

We can't say how title 44 is going to be changed, but this issue
needs to be addressed.  Tension exists between getting the
political support for the program by putting depository libraries
in a congressional district and the economic reality of scarce
resources.  This is an inherent conflict in the system.  If you
pull out the prop, that is, designating congressional districts,
then where do you build that constituency and that support?
Should there be some rationale limit as to how many depositories
could co-exist in a physical space?  If downsizing is something
we are aspiring to and it is not likely that we will get
legislation saying one has to give up their depository status, do
we want to look at libraries with low selection rate, and offer
them an incentive to become a basic resource center?  Such a
center would get a certain core collection, in exchange for not
having to so discard lists, detailed record keeping, etc.  What
does that do to level of service though?  Should GPO be far more
rigid in terms of public access?  Or should we be getting away
from the designation which is a political focus, by reducing what
designation means?  Perhaps the entity could get the designation,
with all of the clout, the Senator or Congressmen gets what he
needs, but GPO doesn't have the cost because they are designated
as something other than an ordinary depository library.  Or if
there is more than one library in a district, should sharing
among those libraries be a requirement?  Should there be
different requirements for different types of libraries?  It is
not clear that decreasing the number of depository libraries
would aid the budget shortfall.  But it is conceivable that a
radical downsizing of the program might affect the budget
shortfall.  Constituents would be upset and complain to GPO and
their congressmen.  There may be a danger in making the budget
shortfall invisible.  There is a need to draw in the community
who can affect the problem and get them to work on a solution.
If you get the libraries to voluntarily scale down their
selections, it will be accepted much more readily.

A second goal of the DLP is that U.S. government publications
shall be made easily accessible to the general public and to
insure their continued availability in the future.  We are still
not clear on what depository librarians really want to receive.
Is there room for compromise or is it "all or nothing?"  Do we
want the libraries to archive this material or do we want them to
serve as conduits to other mechanisms?  Can libraries service
what they receive now?  If some of the technical processing
standards for libraries were relaxed, would that allow for more
services by the libs?  Can the acquisition policies be more
flexible to serve changing needs of the clientele?

Is it possible to send the inspectors out to do training on the
electronic products, instead of inspecting those libraries that
are doing ok?  Self-certification for those libraries doing well
was discussed, thereby freeing up inspectors for other duties.
If there was some incentive/help to the library to make the
transition to electronic, it might make it easier all around.
The government gains economic efficiency and some help has been
provided to the library in making the transition.

Question of equity was raised.  Over 700 libraries select
Congressional reports in microfiche.  It costs GPO $100,000 to
distribute them, compared to $450,000 for paper copies to over
300 libraries.  In terms of GPO resources, they are using a lot
of resource to let a small number of libraries receive paper
copies.  If all libraries received microfiche copies, the cost to
would be $150,000.  How do you judge if those 300 are using paper
to a far greater advantage?  ACSIS will give GPO costs associated
with every item shipped.  GPO will be able to say how much it
cost them to service each library.  GPO could send out a list to
each library of the costs associated with their selections, and
ask them to reduce it by 10%. GPO doesn't care what 10% you cut.
We have to remember the basic premise of the law though - to
serve the needs of the congressional district.

The third goal of the DLP is that depository libraries shall make
government publications available for the free use of the general
public.  Do we have agreement yet as to what that means?  Do we
agree on the definition of government publication and what Title
44 really says?  GPO's General Counsel opinion says free means
without cost; libraries can charge for photocopying, and
duplicating fiche, but not for reading the information.  Even
though GPO's General Counsel has clearly defined that government
publications do include electronic data and JCP agrees, OMB might
not.

Are the goals and objectives expressed in the mission statements
and strategic plans of the individual depository libraries
consistent among libraries, with GPO and with the depository
library agreement?  More research needs to be done to answer this
question.

Monday ended with the following observer comments:

-keep in mind as you deliberate that there isn't a federal
librarian on Council.
-don't forget the small, poor, public libraries - goal of
Congress is that every public library would be a vehicle for
public access.
-every member has to feel committed to the program to support it.
-glad to hear about ACSIS - will this create more item numbers to
provide more selectivity?  GPO is not sure; the system may be
able to handle it, but other procedural things may prevent it.
-libraries all want different things in the program; don't
necessarily want everything in their libraries, but want
everything available to them.
-idea of providing more selectivity is very important - could
save money.
-real opportunity of having small selectives still participate
but without all the requirements.  May be a way to save money on
both ends.
-level of service may vary depending upon constituents - may
restrict level of service to some constituents.  Lot of wiggle
room in regulations.
-best answer to local problems should come from local areas, not
from DLC and certainly not from GPO.
-we have a regional system that we very rarely use.  Regionals
need to have more give and flexibility.  Inspectors should work
very closely with regionals.
-in terms of the public who have complained that their free
access has been denied, it would be interesting to see how they
define the public.
-what would happen if instead of asking libraries to scale back
on their selections, we scale up, and have more requirements to
be a depository?
-we have been hearing a lot of giving up one in terms of the
other.  GPO has a bulletin board that they are denying depository
libraries access to, because we will get that information in
paper, diskette or CD.  What about the reverse - if library
promises not to take in paper, diskette or CD then you get cost
free access to the bulletin board?
-program was established in the sixties when there was an
educational goal for the program.  If you change the structure of
the program, you change the name depository, then what does that
mean?  It would change a number of the requirements.  Ownership
and caretaking requirements should change too.  Not concerned
about the availability as much as the accessibility of
information. Don't lose role of librarian.
-every library is associated with an institution, and the goals
of the institution will dictate the goals of the program and will
be very diverse.

Tuesday, October 20, 1992

Council continued with its formal meeting on Tuesday morning.  It
was decided that implicit in its discussions yesterday there were
a number of basic assumptions which might not be clear to
everyone, so they were outlined as follows:

Assumptions Concerning a Restructured Program

1.  Information world will be a combination of electronic and
print for the foreseeable future (5-10 yrs).
2.  There will be a need for information professionals serving
the public at the user end.  Corollary is that electronic
services will not replace the professional for same period of
time.  There is still a need for intermediaries, although it may
be a different type of intermediary.
3.  Technology will be there to support the program.
4.  User expectations will change and increase.
5.  Points of delivery will become more diverse - notion of user
coming to library to negotiate a question may be just one point
of access.
6.  Need to continue/further leverage our resources through
cooperative ventures since there is not enough money to do what
they would like to do to meet the needs.
7.  Connectivity to INTERNET/NREN will be available to all
libraries.  Net access will be increasingly available to
individuals, businesses and other organizations.
8.  Federal/state/local investments in net development will be
made over next 5-10 years.
9.  Information policy issues:  policy environment is uncertain,
conflicting and will probably continue; constraints of Title 44;
changes to Title 44 are uncertain. (What you deliver)
10.  Telecommunications issues will also remain uncertain and
will be resolved on a much wider scale.  Larger issue that won't
be resolved by the depository library program. (How you deliver)
11.  There is a need to restructure the DLP.
12.  Some depository libraries will be partners in change; some
will not.
13.  Depository Library Program has value.

Question #3 - What Federal agency dissemination needs are being
met through the current Depository Library Program?  How well are
they being met?  How could the current program provide better
service?  What Federal agency dissemination needs could be met
through a restructured DLP?

John Weiner had surveyed fourteen federal agencies.  General
themes that came out - agencies are not particularly familiar
with the depository library system, while some felt their needs
were being met through the DLP.  Some take a positive, active
approach to the DLP; others felt that use of DLP covered their
responsibility and they didn't have to do much more.  Agencies
also believed that system provides free information access to a
broad audience, some members of which have no other resource.
Several felt system provided long term availability, so agencies
didn't have to stock the information because it is out there for
the public to access.  Some felt the system provides an important
agency link to specialized communities, like education.

How well are their needs being met?  Uncertain since many
agencies don't know if library selected their publications and if
they actually received them.  Some agencies crafted other
dissemination techniques, for whatever reasons.

How could the current program provide better service?  Agencies
need more awareness about the program; public needs to be more
aware of what's out there in program; and more direct
communication channels between libraries and agencies needed.

What dissemination needs could be met through restructured DLP?
A restructured DLP could address the duplication between some
agencies and DLP; may provide agencies with greater incentive to
consider the DLP in their planning efforts to modernize their
information dissemination and access programs and identify the
best delivery mechanisms for their users.  Archiving of
information and agency expectations still need more discussion
and investigation.

Question #4 - What criteria can be developed to measure the
effectiveness of the existing Depository Library Program and how
can these criteria be applied to models such as the one presented
by ARL?  What are the implications of maintaining the status quo
and making no changes to the current program?

There are many ways of looking at this question; one way is an
objective input base. Who gets evaluated?  Depositories, not GPO,
users, or agencies?  The determination of successful is you look
at some of the elements of evaluation - do you have what you are
suppose to have, are you keeping it in a way people can get
access to it, is it there or not - all of which are objective
measures.  If you want to begin an objective outcome analysis of
all the areas of the program based on customer components, that
would be a completely different analysis.  An objective analysis
of the customers should be done incorporating the following
questions:  Who are they?  What do they want?  When do they want
it?  Where do they want it?  Why do they want it?  How are they
going to get it and in what form?  Are they satisfied with the
service they get and the resources which are available to them?
Who are other potential users?  What are other potential uses?

Other methodologies could be used to obtain the information -
subjective, objective, inputs, outcomes, customer or user
opinion, and systemic and organizational analysis.

If you want to evaluate effectiveness, you probably want to
evaluate GPO too, besides the public.  Other points of presence
that might be in place such as kiosks, government offices, may
also be measured for effectiveness.

Other evaluation components might be strategic plans - do they
have one and are they being implemented?  Is the program cost-
effective?  What plans do you have for growth?

Implications of maintaining status quo - the one that drives
everything first is money.  Is a match between resources and
mission even possible?  Are people willing to give such resources
to you?  There may be lost opportunities to provide better
service at lower cost.  Technological advances not well managed -
because we have differing formats, differing capabilities in
different libraries, and unevenness in quality of service in
different libraries.

The rest of the discussion on the question centered around an
evaluation of the users.  We need to determine what data already
exists (ie. raw data from the Hernon-McClure study of users),
explore various avenues to collect data (ie. Federal Depository
Conference, academic institutions, large public libraries, focus
groups, GODORT), determine what data we want, how reliable we
want it, how much money we are willing to spend, and develop a
plan to do this.  Council may be able to include 2-3 questions on
two surveys that are currently being done of certain segments of
the depository library community.  We do have to be concerned
about getting piecemeal data which might not be useful.

Question #5 - Various critics of the Depository Library System
have proposed alterative models such as the creation of a
national collection or a system of "super-regionals" or
electronic depositories to help relieve some of the problems
associated with the current system.  What are the ideal
characteristics of these alternative structures and what criteria
can be used for their analysis?

Council reviewed the problems with the current system to know why
they are even talking about restructuring.  Fugitive
publications/information - not everything that should be in the
system is currently available through the system.  Service levels
vary from library to library.  Many regionals are not capable of
handling the materials they currently receive.  Funding for all
facets of the current program is currently experiencing cuts,
threatened cuts, or stagnation.  There is currently not enough
consolidated statistical information available to show who uses
depositories, how depositories are responding to user needs, and
what kind of return on its investment the U.S. government is
getting from funding the depository program in terms of the value
of public information and access.  Electronic products have added
extra expense for GPO and for participating libraries and will
require new training and procedures to effectively disseminate
and use these products, thus further taxing limited resources.

Most of the approaches that have been suggested in the past
stress a "level of services approach" that formalizes what is
already happening in different depository libraries in the
system.  Maybe by looking at some of these alternatives we could
turn a weakness in the system into a strength by tying an
individual library with that particular library's users, their
particular needs, and the expertise that is available.  It would
also tie those smaller libraries into a system whereby they could
have a very specific role in contacting another library with a
higher level of expertise, access to products, and available
service.

Some Ideal Characteristics of a Restructured System

1.  Participation of "have-nots" in the system by having some
items available locally, but more importantly their position as
an access point to information and expertise available at another
level in the system.
2.  Use of limited funds to insure the biggest return on
investment - some libraries would have access to more materials,
training, etc, and therefore, more funds would be spent on that
collection; but that information and expertise would be shared on
a wide basis within their jurisdiction.
3.  An integral factor in the system working well is close
cooperation between information creators (agencies), information
disseminators (GPO), and information access points (libraries) to
insure that the mission of the depository program is kept in
sight and that information/products are used to their full
potential.
4.  Adequate training and expertise must be planned and budgeted
at some level within the system.
5.  Access to all materials at some level within the system and a
quick, efficient mechanism to get information or materials to
other access points within the system must be provided.  Need to
know that if we call someone else in the system we will be able
to get help.

Three Possible Alternative Structures

NATIONAL COLLECTION - might help to get more fugitive documents
into the system if you only have to come up with 2-3 copies.  It
would help the regionals in that not everyone would have to keep
everything sent to them.  This would be very labor intensive,
very expensive, and have an expansive level of service; but it
might free up some funding at other levels that could help
maintain this structure.

SUPER-REGIONAL - this is based on a geographic distribution,
dictated possibly by GPO.  This could more fairly allocate some
of the resources within a region.  Each library that was a super
regional would provide service to approximately a five-state
contingency, same sort of level of service as national collection
but just to those states in their region.  It assumes a lot of
sharing between super-regionals.  Institutions should demonstrate
ahead of time both through agreement and ability to serve in this
function so we don't have situation where someone is designated
as super-regional and then not have the ability to provide the
services needed in this kind of system.  Question was raised as
to what incentive exists for someone to be a super-regional.
There might be financial support to be a super-regional, as well
as extra training.  Responsibilities for super-regional fall into
3 areas - dissemination (electronic/paper/microfiche products),
archival and training.  Super-regional would serve as
Internet/NREN node for the region.  Might serve as place to store
large amounts of data since we can't necessarily rely on National
Archives to do this.  Concern was raised that thrust of
electronic dissemination is just the opposite of consolidation
into super-regionals.  Supporting access to information might not
need to be done in super-regional structure.

ELECTRONIC DEPOSITORIES - libraries set up to take all electronic
materials, would develop the technical expertise to handle the
materials.  This too would be very labor intensive and costly,
but benefit would come in these libraries having the background
and know-how to help other libraries.

Criteria for Analysis of New Structure

1.  Does the structure meet the information needs of citizens of
the U.S. and the dissemination needs of federal agencies?
2.  Does the structure meet the requirements of the DLP as set
out in Title 44 and any new legislation that deals with this
topic?
3.  Does the structure provide equitable, no-fee access?
4.  Does the structure impose additional cost to the end user?
5.  How is the program funded?  Is it cost-effective?
6.  How fast can you get information from one of the alternative
structures to a depository library or individual?
7.  How well does the new system evolve from the established
system?  Can all current participating libraries remain a part of
the system at some level if they so choose?
8.  How is training and expertise built into the system?  At what
level?  At what funding?
9.  Is the system accessible to all user groups?  Are we making
accounts for urban/rural, academic/business, difference
geographical regions, etc.
10.  Are all pertinent documents/products accounted for at some
place in the system?
11.  Is there a mechanism for gathering information that provides
statistical data on how the program is serving users, who is
served, etc.
12.  Is system compatible with GPO strategic planning activities

Tuesday morning ended with the following observer comments:

-paper will continue to exist and be needed.
-a joint regional by subject specialty may disperse information
in a more equitable manner.  Various libraries have already
developed subject expertise and collections depending upon their
clientele.
-WORM technology is great, but it is still expensive.
-think we will run into problems with super-regionals, may be
hard to find people to volunteer to serve in this role.  A lot of
sharing between libraries already exists and we should tap into
that network.
-Council didn't touch on marketing issue enough.  Need to market
it at the local level or the public won't support the system.
-how is the Council going to involve the depository library
community in this discussion of restructuring?
-need to determine what our shared goals are.
-probably should coordinate the GODORT agency liaison program
with GPO's activities.
-important to have Spring DLC meeting adjacent to or at the same
time as the Spring Federal Depository Conference, so that you
could do focus groups, find out what is being used and how.
-important to include potential users when considering
restructuring of the program.
-remember that the more you provide, the more demand there will
be.
-this is the most promising Council meeting in the past decade.
Issues really haven't changed, but the viewpoints of the members
looking at them have changed.
-don't try to do everything at once.  Take some opportunities,
look for priorities, and do what you can to start building within
the next 2 years, which is probably the optimum time when people
in Congress really are going to be interested in, energized
about, and want to do something about it.


FOLLOW-UP SESSION

A Communications Subcommittee was established consisting of the
following members of Council:  Sandy Morton, Chair, Jack Sulzer,
Carol Gordon, and John Weiner.  Wayne sees this committee as an
ah hoc committee, not a permanent one, with volunteers who have
the time and interest.  Wayne also sees the Subcommittee
providing continuity of our discussions, so there is follow-up
and continued discussion.  This Subcommittee will be looking at
such things as:
-communications from GPO to the depository community.
-what ways can this be accomplished and enhanced?
-is GODORT one mechanism GPO can use?
-are there others?
-what about communication with federal agencies?
-what about communication with the public, promoting or marketing
the DLP?
-what about communication with other groups such as the Soloman
Island group?
-are there other groups not mentioned that we should be
communicating with?
-what about communication between depositories?
-what are the mechanisms and processes for GPO to improve and
open up communications?
-what would GPO get out of it?

A second Subcommittee was established to handle the details of
doing a written report from this meeting, consisting of Bob
Oakley, Chair, Susan Tulis, Beth Duston, Gary Cornwell, and Mark
Vonderhaar.  Council felt it was important to record what
transpired during this meeting, as well as answering some of the
questions raised here.  This report could also serve as a basis
for discussion at focus groups, stakeholders conference, Federal
Publishers Committee meeting, GODORT meetings, or any other time
interested parties are available.  Council will try to have a
tentative draft of the report available in April.  All Council
members will probably be asked to contribute to certain parts of
the report, with the Subcommittee doing the outline and final
editing.

Outline of Report

1.  History and background of the program.
2.  Why is restructuring an issue - Council assumptions about
program.
3.  Specific models, including ideal characteristics of a
restructured program.
4.  Process for the future.

There was much discussion about having a stakeholders conference
in the Spring to review this document, but nothing was finalized.
There was also much discussion about utilizing focus groups as a
way to get suggestions, criticisms, ideas about the report.
Wayne said that while it is appropriate for Council to say think
about focus groups, it is up to GPO to determine if it is
feasible for them to come up with resources or get resources to
do it.

Council has continually talked about the need to do a survey of
the users of depository libraries.  Two surveys are being done
within the next few months and we have the opportunity to include
1-2 questions on each.  Ridley Kessler, Bill Sudduth and Mike Von
Fossen are surveying the Regional libraries and will include 1-2
questions.  Gary Cornwell will work with them on what questions
to ask.  Steve Hayes is conducting a survey of 350 depository
libraries.  Council gave Steve the sense of what we want asked
and he will come up with the specific questions.  The two things
mentioned were: 1) what are ten titles most used by your library
and in what format?  2) outreach - what types of things are you
doing?

Lastly, it was suggested that the Spring meeting be held in
conjunction or adjacent to the Federal Depository Conference.
However, no one had a suggestion as to how to do this without
keeping people in Washington for 10 days or having GPO staff
working on a weekend.


Submitted by:

Susan E. Tulis
Secretary
Susan E. Tulis                              Phone    804/924-3504
University of VA Law Library                Fax      804/982-2232
Charlottesville, VA 22901                   Bitnet   set7c@virginia
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU