ADMINISTRATIVE NOTES

Newsletter of the Federal Depository Library Program

Vol. 16, no. 04 GP 3.16/3-2:16/04 March 15, 1995

Special Council issue

Make Your Reservations for the Spring 1995

Depository Library Council Meeting

The spring 1995 meeting of the Depository Library Council to the Public Printer will convene in Arlington, Virginia from 8:00 a .m. on Monday, April 10 through 10:30 a.m. on

Wednesday, April 12. The meeting will be held at the Rosslyn Westpark Hotel in Arlington.

The hotel address is:

1900 North Fort Myer Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22209

A block of rooms has been retained for the annual Federal Depository Conference and

the Depository Library Council meeting. Special room rates are $87 per room, per night.

Reservations must be made by calling (703) 527-4814 or (800) 368-3408 or by fax at (703)

522-8864. Please specify the Federal Depository Conference when making your reservation.

If you are attending the Council meeting and staying over at the Westpark for the

Conference, please extend your reservations through the 13th of April.

The Rosslyn Westpark is 1/2 block from the Rosslyn Metro Station and parking is free to guests and meeting attendees.

Make your plans now!

The fall Depository Library Council

meeting will be held in Memphis,

Tennessee, October 16-18, 1995.

1
AN-vl6-#04-3/ 15/95

Depository Library Council Meeting Agenda, Spring 1995

April 10 - 12, 1995

Rosslyn Westpark Hotel

1900 North Fort Myer Drive

Arlington, Virginia

Sunday, April 9

Evening

Informal pre-dinner get-together in hotel lobby (6:00 p.m.)

Hcnday, April 1€

Morning

8:00 Registration & Coffee

8:30 Welcome & Introductions

• Jack Sulzer, Council Chair

8:45 Welcome and Government Initiatives Update

• Michael F. DiMario, Public Printer

9:15 GPO Update

• Wayne P. Kelley, Superintendent of Documents

• J.D. Young, Director, Library Programs Service

• Judith Russell, Director, Office of Electronic Information Dissemination Services

10:15 Break

10:30 Council Committee Reports & Issues for Council Consideration

11:30 Audience Comment: Q&A

12:00 Lunch with Council

(Groups will form in hotel lobby.)

2
AN-vl6-#04-3/15/95

/Hcnday, April 1€ (cent^cl)

Afternoon

2:00 ALA/GODORT Report

• Mary Redmond, Chair

2:15 Council Forum: Council Members, GPO Staff, Audience

"Public Access to ACCESS: Bringing up Gateways, Introducing WAIS, and

Improving ACCESS in the 'Just-in-time' Environment"

3:15 Break

3:30 Council Forum (continued)

4:15 Council Discussion

Discuss and outline issues before Council

Assign recommendation drafting teams

5:00 Adjourn

Evening

3rd Annual Spring Program on the Electronic Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

Co-sponsored by the District of Columbia Library Association and the

Government Documents Round Table of ALA

Council Business Meeting

Outline areas for recommendations and action items

Drafting teams begin work

3
AN-vl6-#04-3/15/95

Tuesday, April 11

Morning

8:30 Ad Hoc Committee on Regional Structure Open Forum

Open discussion of selected issues raised by the Ad Hoc Committee report

• Gary Cornwell, Committee Chair

• Duncan Aldrich, Forum Facilitator

10:15 Break

10:30 Special Conference Program: Federal Electronic Information Policy: The Promise

and the Peril from an End-User's Perspective

• Bruce Maxwell, author

11:15 Special Conference Program: Americans Communicating Electronically

• Thomas Tate, Department of Agriculture

12:00 Lunch with Council

(Groups will form in hotel lobby.)

Afternoon

2:00 Regional Libraries Meeting - Open Forum

• Dan O'Mahony, Forum Chair

6:30 Adjourn

Evening

8:00 Council Drafting Teams Working Sessions

Wednesday, April 12

Morning

8:00 Council Presentation of Draft Recommendations and Action Items

10:30 Council Adjourns to Depository Library Conference

4
AN-vl6-#04-3/ 15/95

Depository Library Council Members

Revised February 22, 1995

Term expires September 30, 1995: Term expires September 30, 1996:

Dan O. Clemmer

Librarian

IM/IS/OIS/LR, Km. 3239

U.S. Dept. of State

Washington, DC 20520

(202) 647-3002

Fax: (202) 647-2971

E-mail: clemmer@class.org

David R. Hoffman

PO Box 247

Harrisburg, PA 17108

(717) 232-7926

Judith Rowe

Manager of Research Services

Princeton University Computing &

Information Technology

87 Prospect Avenue

Princeton, NJ 08544

(609) 258-6052

Fax: (609) 258-3943

E-mail : judith@pucc . princeton.edu

Cynthia Etkin

Government Services Supervisor

Helm-Cravens Library

Western Kentucky University

Bowling Green, KY 42101

(502) 745-6441

Fax: (502) 745-5943

E-mail: etkin@wkyuvm.wku.edu

Linda M. Kennedy

Head, Government Documents Department

Shields Library

University of California, Davis

Davis, CA 95616

(916) 752-1624

Fax: (916) 752-3148

E-mail: lmkennedy@ucdavis.edu

Wilda Marston

2001 Turnagain Parkway

Anchorage, AK 99517

(907) 248-4793

Fax: (907) 243-4359

John (Jack) H. Sulzer

Head, General Reference Section

E108 Pattee Library

Pennsylvania State University

University Park, PA 16802

(814) 865-3819

Fax: (814) 865-1015

E-mail: jhs@psulias.psu.edu (W)

ui9@psuvm.bitnet (H)

Daniel P. O'Mahony

Government Documents Coordinator

John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Library

Brown University

Providence, RI 02912

(401) 863-2522

Fax: (401) 863-1272

E-mail : ap201 1 59@brownvm. brown. edu

Bobby C. Wynn

Director of Library Services

Charles W. Chesnutt Library

Fayetteville State University

1200 Murchison Road

Fayetteville, NC 28301-4298

(910) 486-1232

Fax: (910) 486-1746

E-mail: bobby@libl.uncfsu.edu

5
AN-vl6-#04-3/15/95

Term expires September 30, 1997:

Phyllis R. Christenson

Director, Information Services Center

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW.

Washington, DC 20548

(202) 512-2647

(202) 512-8405

E-mail: pchristenson@gao.gov

Susan Dow

Head, Documents Department

State University of New York at Buffalo

Charles B. Sears Law Library

2022 Northwood Drive

Williamsville, NY 14221

(716) 645-2347

Fax: (716) 645-3860

E-mail : 1wlsusan@ubvm. cc . buffa lo . edu

Janice Anita Fryer

Reference Librarian

152 Parks Library

Iowa State University

Ames, lA 50011

(515) 294-2849

Fax: (515) 294-1885

E-mail: jfiryer@iastate.edu

Stephen M. Hayes

Reference & Public Documents Librarian

115 Hesburgh Library

University of Notre Dame

Notre Dame, IN 46556-2956

(219) 631-5268

(219) 631-6043

E-mail: shayes@vma.cc.nd.edu

Mary Margaret Farrell Parhamovich

Head, Government Documents

James Dickinson Library

University of Nevada-Las Vegas

Las Vegas, NV 89123

(702) 895-1571

(Direct line to her voice mail: call (702)

895-3409 to find out where she can be

reached)

Fax: (702) 895-1207

E-mail: magoo@nevada.edu

6
AN-vienS'O^/lS/PS

DLC Ad Hoc Committee on Regional Structure

Depository Library Council Meeting

April 11, 1995

The Ad Hoc Committee on Regional Structure has planned a busy agenda for the

upcoming Depository Library Council (DLC) meeting. On Tuesday, April 11 the committee

will be conducting 2 separate "open forum" sessions on issues relating to Regional depository

libraries.

The first session will be held from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and will address 3 specific

issues that the DLC has asked the committee to look at. This session will be moderated by

Duncan Aldrich, Regional Librarian at the University of Nevada, Reno, and will be modeled

after the "Technology Tea" that Jane Bartlett held a few years ago. That is, under each

discussion topic there will be 3 or 4 possible solutions/scenarios for solving the problem.

Duncan will lead a focused discussion of the pros and cons of each possible solution and

based on these discussions the committee will make recommendations to Council so that they can develop "Formal Council Recommendations to the Public Printer."

Obviously, for this to succeed it is incumbent upon the committee to come up with some

workable solutions to the issues before arriving in Washington. To help meet that goal,

community input on the following topics is imperative. Any thoughts or ideas that you may

have can be directed to any committee member.

(1) REGIONAL LIBRARIES AND THE STRUCTURE OF THE DEPOSITORY LIBRARY

PROGRAM

Proposition: The current organization of the regional and selective depository libraries is an

ineffective foundation for the future of the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP).

* Why should the Regional system be maintained? What would be lost without it?

* Should Regional libraries be evaluated and redesignated based upon a review of their

locations, population served, staff resources, technological capabilities, and resources

available for support of selective depositories?

* What vision do Regional librarians share for a strucmre that would best promote the

widest use and preservation of Federal information in a technology-based

environment?

(2) REGIONAL LIBRARIES AS ARCHIVES OF FEDERAL INFORMATION

Proposition: Archiving and preserving Federal information in all media, particularly

electronic formats, remains an unresolved and troubling issue for Regional libraries and the

FDLP.

7
AN-vl6-#04-3/15/95

* Should Regionals continue to serve the primary role among depositories in archiving

all Federal information for the purpose of preservation?

* Should Regionals continue to serve the primary role of offering comprehensive access

to all Federal information deposited in the Depository Library Program-that is, maintaining information in a "just in case" scenario?

(3) REGIONALS AS THE LEADING DEPOSITORY LIBRARIES

Proposition: Given the shortage of resources in libraries generally, and in many Regional

libraries in particular, regional libraries can no longer maintain a role of leadership in the

Depository Library Program and support selective depository libraries in the future.

* What is the role of Regionals in establishing and maintaining standards for the

professional competence, training, and certification of depository librarians?

* Should Regionals be responsible for: — the technological development of the Depository Library Program; ~ technical training and support of depository librarians; and - maintaining technological standards in the depository system?

* What services should Regionals offer m support of selective depositories?

The afternoon session will be held from 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and will address topics

raised by the morning session. It will also continue discussions begun at last year's Regional

meeting. Dan O'Mahony, incoming Chair of Council, will serve as facilitator for this

session. Mechanisms are in place to ensure that topics brought up during this session that

might necessitate further action will be forwarded to Council for their consideration. Possible

topics for this session include:

• Operational Issues

• Disposition Lists

• Training & Mentoring

• Shared Responsibilities

• Retention Requirements

• Bibliographic Control

• Administrative Overhead

• Inspections

• Space

• Electronic Capabilities

Again, community input (before arriving in Washington) as to what topics should be

addressed is essential to a successful "program." Any ideas that you have for possible

discussion topics can be forwarded to Dan O'Mahony or Gary Cornwell.

The information that follows includes:

"Vision Statement" for Regional Depositories

Served as the basis of the 3 specific issues on which Council is seeking advice. It will

also serve as the preface to the Final Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Regional

Structure

8
AN-vl6-#04-3/15/95

Committee Discussion Papers

Provided for background purposes, the various discussion papers prepared by

committee members raise a number of interesting questions regarding the future

structure of the DLP. Continued discussion by depository librarians on any of these

topics is always welcome.

List of Committee Members

Up-to-date listing of current members of the Ad Hoc Committee on Regional Structure.

In addition to this printing in Administrative Notes, this material will also be posted to REGIONAL-L and to GOVDOC-L.

Vision Statement for Regional Depositories

In contemplating the fumre of regionals in the organizational structure of the Federal

Depository Library Program (FDLP), it is important not to lose sight of the impact that the

Ubrary community historically has had in shaping the role of the Government Printing Office

(GPO) and the role it continues to play in duplication and dissemination of Federal

information to the public.

By common consensus the 53 regionals play an essential role in preserving the health and

character of the FDLP by providing information, advice, guidance, training and support.

Indeed, the regionals are the strength and wisdom of the depository program. It is the only

group within the FDLP with the cohesion to guide the depository community into an

uncertain fumre.

Historically recommendations made by the documents community have become the basis

for many of the regulations found in Title 44 of the United States Code and serve as a framework for managing these important collections. The success of this cooperation

between GPO and the library community is underscored by a shared belief that access to this

information is a fundamental right which sustains and vitalizes our way of government and its citizenry. The information that has been collected and disseminated by the government

continues to accumulate at an accelerating pace.

The dissemination and access to the information using the depository network has worked

well over the years, but advances in technology, and public demand for greater access

already places a strain on existing resources of depository libraries.

In the coming decade the depository community will be challenged by an even greater

demand for accessibility to federal resources in electronic format. And although electronic access and delivery of data has been part of the information profession for well over a decade, this method is only now becoming available to the public at the Federal level.

9
AN-vl6-#04-3/15/95

Today we discuss dissemination via fiber optic networks; tomorrow we will discuss

satellite transmission. Determining what information will be delivered is already taking

shape. In the past five years there has been a dramatic increase in the use and functions

available through the Internet. Many government sources are accessible now because of the

efforts of non-federal instimtions responding to the information needs of their researchers,

staff, and smdents. Growth in the availability of government information in this manner has

already established a government information infrastrucmre based not on the needs of an

informed citizenry but on the information needs of specific communities. The realities of the

present demand that questions as to what role depositories (regionals and selectives) of the

future will play.

With the increase of information available from non-federal sources, what will be the

role of regionals and selective depositories?

Will the role of providing access to federal information be met by default by private

institutions that are reacting to the information needs of their specific communities?

With the realization of the National Research Education Networks, will greater access to federal information marginalize the need for depository collections?

The major role for regionals and selectives now, and in the future, will be to guide GPO

in formulating an information policy that will guarantee reasonable access and thereby protect

a citizens right to know.

Access is the critical issue shaping the future of GPO, regionals, and the depository

program. How government information is delivered over the next ten years will determine

the level, and dollar value attached to the kinds and degree of access.

In view of this already occurring it seerns that identifying the information needs of our

users and ensuring these needs are met, will be even more critical.

But certainly in the new millennia this will not be our only purpose. Meeting the

challenge will require bold and incisive decisions that must lead regionals in partnership with

GPO in areas of technical support, depository standards, training, preservation, guidance and

consultation.

1 . Support for preservation

The depository program faces a crisis common to the library community. The printed

and microfiche volumes in member collections are deteriorating. Age, brittleness, handling

and abuse, put items in danger of destruction or must be withdrawn from circulation. A

significant proportion (possibly half) of member collections will be unusable in a decade.

Priceless government records, outside the depository and commercial sphere, may be

irretrievably lost. To insure against these losses the depository community along with GPO

must quickly work to accomplish the following:

10
AN-vl6-#04-3/15/95

a. Establish a mechanism for identifying sources of importance and value for

preservation and retention.

b. Initiate and support through grants, or direct funding, preservation efforts to be

undertaken by designated regionals.

c. Create a regional management structure that will guide and coordinate the

development of depository collections in a geographic area that factors in retention or

archival issues for the area.

d. Create a national union list of holdings for the purpose of retaining and preserving

information of historical significance.

2. Support for technology

The Federal Depository Library Program must rapidly adopt technology as another

method of information dissemination. Technology must not become an end in itself, but a method of dissemination "mainstreamed" into the traditional generic practices of selection,

acquisition, and reference.

a. Sensible benchmarks for successful use of technology need to be established to assure both a fair measure of compliance with FDLP guidelines, and realistic assessments to compare and measure performance between member libraries and other information

providers.

b. Efforts to provide access to federal information must not be hampered by the lack of

standardization. There is a need for government agencies to adopt search engines for

numerical, cartographic, and textual databases, so that the cost of access is not passed

along to local depositories in the form of purchases of additional software.

3. Support for professional librarianship

The depository program must adopt a standard of professional competence for active

documents librarians. The depository community has always encouraged informed

individuals, especially librarians, to manage depository collections. During the last decade a revolution in government information and the depository program has occurred. The

accelerated, highly charged environment of government information requires professional

management. Standards for professional excellence should be established, with consideration

of continuing education and certification.

4. Support for Public Access

The depository program must adopt a standard to identify and measure service for the

general public. The depository program currently serves many specific interest groups, and

these group often are the parent institutions which ftmd the libraries which house the

11
AN-vl6-#04-3/15/95

depository collections. How "public" is defined by depository libraries defines the types and

levels of support for their collections and the patrons which use them. A uniform mmimum

standard for "public" support is necessary for better service to the states and communities

depository libraries reside in, as well as removing some divisions between libraries.

a. Regionals must maintain a presence that depositories have historically held in shaping

the regulations that define the intent and purpose of the Federal Depository Library

Program.

5. Guidance, Consultation, and Technical support

Regionals currently provide training to staff in other depositories without the option of

recovering costs associated with training such as travel, material, or staffing. The future

regional structure should provide compensation for these services.

Operational Issues

Tom Andersen, California State Library

It is difficult to discuss operational issues of regional depositories as discrete categories.

Discussing any facet of the work leads to a consideration of another. Collection development

issues lead to a discussion of staff, physical facilities, bibliographic control, and so on.

Considering the number of years that most libraries have served as depositories, and then

as regionals, most meet the determination that a regional is truly a library within a library.

Listed here are some of the major concerns for regionals:

* Regionals must receive and retain all items offered through the Federal Depository

Library Program, unless they are superseded in either print or microfacsimile form.

* Regionals require additional staff beyond the levels expected of selectives.

* Regionals must meet the added requirement for INCREASED levels of equipment,

training, and in doing so, overcome problems of access for documents on CD-ROM,

floppy disks, and other non-traditional formats

* Regionals are required to provide leadership. Establishing its presence regional staff are expected to provide guidance, provide opportunities for consultation, and

accompany GPO inspectors.

* Regionals must hold all or most documents in perpetuum. Guaranteeing the

comprehensiveness and integrity of the state or regions holdings regionals must

12
AN-vl6-#04-3/15/95

formulate and administer policies to manage the disposition of unwanted documents.

In large depository communities this can present a formidable task.

To alleviate some of the burden regionals may set up separate housing agreements with

other institutions.

Finding libraries willing to participate is difficult as was recently demonstrated with

USGS digital orthophotoquad compact discs.

Negotiating and administering the agreements bring another dynamic to regional

operations.

* Regionals must assist selectives with reference questions, ILL, and provide some

mechanism for photocopies, fiche-to- fiche copies, or floppy disk copies.

* Regionals are expected to offer workshops and training sessions.

Service philosophy is the underpinning for all that regionals accomplish or offer. It is the nexus for views on staffing, physical facilities, collection development, bibliographic

control, maintenance and outreach.

In this regard all regionals are not created equal. The quality and size of the depository

community served and the resources a library brings to this effort can affect the service they can offer or provide. Supporting this view is the study of Hernon, et al, which determined

that in comparison to public libraries most academic libraries collect about 25 % more items

and are likely to have access to technology not yet available in public libraries. A regional in

a community with mostly academic depositories may have less of role to play in areas

affected by these considerations.

On the other hand most service philosophies in academic libraries are designed to meet

the research and information needs of faculty, students, staff, and alumni, and then the

general public.

The Hernon smdy also stated that budget allocation for 92.2% of the regionals was over

$1 million. Although not stated in the study, unlike regionals in public or special libraries,

academic libraries have an indirect cost recovery mechanism available through tuition charges

and student fees.

While it is expected that all will compete for grants from the same state or federal

authorities academic libraries are more likely to receive private endowments.

Realistically, local politics and economics force regionals to reinvent requirements and

limit the expectations of GPO.

State and public instimtions, either by law or policy, have a difficult time of rationalizing

operational costs for services provided in support of depositories across states or part of

another state. And yet, for the general public, it is these regional types that will most likely

meet their government information needs.

13
AN-vl6-#04-3/ 15/95

Subject-Based Collections: Issues for Regional/National Coverage

Cindy Etkin, Western Kentucky University

A system of subject-based depository libraries would be based on the "Centers for

Excellence" concept and would eliminate Regional depository libraries as we know them

today. This type of arrangement would take advantage of subject expertise that has already

been established by some libraries, as well as allowing a specialty to be cultivated in others.

Additionally, communication and cooperation between the information creators,

disseminators, and providers would be enhanced. As I see it, a couple of options can be

explored for establishing the geographic boundaries of these centers.

Option 1 would be to have subject-based collections established within the regions as they

exist today, with the stipulation being made that 100% of the items must be selected within

the region. Many responsibilities would be attached to being a "subject center." The center

would have to accept the obligations of maintaining and servicing a comprehensive

collection. For example, the archival collections would reside with the center and therefore,

disposition lists would have to be processed. These are responsibilities that selectives

currently do not have (obviously). This scenario would solve many of the problems that

regionals face today (space, processing 100%, disposition lists...) but I am not sure how

many selectives would be willing, or more importantly, able to accept obligations of this

magnitude.

Option 2 would be to create the subject-based collections and 100% selection of items

among the current regional depository libraries. Although this would have less of an impact on selective depositories, than option 1, I can foresee problems/questions with this particular

scenario. Once again, having the stipulation for 100% of the items to be selected within a

particular region could be established and perhaps eliminate many of the concerns. This

option would, however, allow regionals to weed collections as well as have some selectivity

and selectives would not have to accept responsibilities for which they have never planned.

Questions to ponder. .

.

1 . Could option 1 be possible if larger regions were established? Perhaps Census regions or

divisions?

2. Could option 2 be possible if a smaller network of subject-based collections were

established? 100% among regionals in the East and 100% among regionals in the West?

Census regions or divisions?

3 . Would Title 44 have to be amended or could this be done within the economic necessity

loophole of section 1914?

4. If either of these options were to be implemented, and assuming that regionals would

dispose of materials, there would be fewer archival copies of documents around. What if a

disaster (flood, fire, earthquake...) were to occur? Alternative formats OK?

5. Some lending policies would have to be less restrictive.

14
AN-vl6-m-3/15/95

The following were taken from Administrative Notes 14(13):45-46, 6/20/93 ...

1. Ability of the library to take on an added role.

2. Willingness to accept the responsibilities for training, dissemination, archival functions

and reference assistance within a subject field.

3 . Prospects for bringing more fugitive documents into the system since fewer copies might

be needed for special subject collections (or increased communications with originating

agency).

4. Would current regionals or other large libraries be willing to take on the responsibility of

serving a larger area?

5. What are the incentives for becoming a Subject-based regional?

6. How would the Subject-based Regional concept mesh with other components of the

Depository program? Would the current regionals disappear? What geographic areas would Subject-based Regionals be expected to serve?

7. How would this system compare in cost with the current system? At what level and by

whom will costs be absorbed?

8. Does it reach all user groups?

9. Is access for the user quick enough to be useful and is access certain?

10. Could a Subject-based Depository for Environmental Protection also be the Electronic

Depository as well as serve as the National Collection for this topic?

1 1 . Could a Super-Regional serve as the National Collection for a particular topic based on

geographical area?

12. With new technologies providing instant access - would an exceptional National

Collection library do away with the need for Super Regionals? Would it be a better use

of resources to concentrate everything at that level except for selective depositories?

15
AN-vl6-#04-3/15/95

States With More Than One Regional

Carol Gordon, Milwaultee Public Library

Since Maureen Harris of Clemson University will discuss "Libraries Sharing Regional

Responsibilities within a State" which includes South Carolina and North Dakota, my report

will concentrate on the remaining states with more than one regional. I contacted at least one

regional from Alabama, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and

Texas, and the conversations with those libraries netted a fairly uniform response.

In each case, the two regionals within the state have divided the state geographically

either by county, by Congressional District, by metropolitan/non-metro area, or by a designated state highway or other physical boundary~with each regional assuming

responsibility for the selective depositories within its designated area. Those responsibilities

include interlibrary loan/document delivery, technical assistance, reference assistance,

collection development advice, on-site visits, approval of disposal lists, and information as required on the depository program. Aside from sharing duties related to their respective

selectives, the institutions, for the most part, operate as independent entities.

With the exception of an occasional Shared Housing Agreement, the only formal

collection or resource sharing agreement between regionals (which includes selectives as well)

is in the state of Michigan. The Michigan Plan achieves the responsibility of regional

libraries for retention of essentially all publications by "cooperative retention of older, lesser

used materials at only one regional or designated library" and by allowing "selective

depositories which have formal cooperative agreements specifying retention responsibilities

(in the name of the regional depository)" to acquire and retain major sets of materials. The

ultimate goal of this plan is "to ensure that there is a copy of every federal document of

significant or enduring value somewhere in Michigan", and "to establish a system so each

depository librarian may know the location of unique or strong collections in particular

fields." ("Michigan Plan for the Federal Documents Depository Library System", 1993

Rev.) The extent to which resource sharing is being done in Michigan bears further

investigation, but this, in essence, together with the development of appropriate locator

systems, is one of the suggestions being explored for system wide regional cooperation.

Colorado has a unique cooperative agreement with respect to selective responsibilities.

Although some duties are divided according to geographic designation, the University of

Colorado at Boulder has agreed to handle all reference requests and all inquiries regarding

the Depository Library Program from selectives tliroughout the state while Denver Public

Library is responsible for all of the discard lists.

Although the two Wisconsin Regionals operate independently, the University of

Wisconsin-Madison maintains a "shared regional" among the 18 or so libraries on the UW

campus. While the regional headquarters and general collection is housed at the Wisconsin

State Historical Society, the SuDocs arrangement is split among the Agriculmral,

Cartographic, Engineering, Law, and various other libraries with a locator file maintained to determine holdings at each site. As with some of the other states with two regionals, UW

circulates its documents while Milwaukee Public Library handles documents as a reference

collection providing short-term reference loans.

16
AN-vl6-#04-3/ 15/95

While intrastate "regional cooperation" varies a great deal, some of the plans and models

could be examined more closely. Can some of these plans be adapted to multi-state or multiregion co-ops? What kinds of selective responsibilities can best be shared among regionals in a broader geographic context? Are some libraries positioning themselves to provide

electronic data support to selectives in their states? If so, in what way? If "electronic

centers" or IDEA (Information Depository for Electronic Access) libraries are developed,

will state boundaries continue to be significant in the evolution of the Regional Library

concept?

Libraries Sliaring Regional Responsibilities Within a State

Maureen Harris, Clemson University

For those states now having more than one Regional, this arrangement offers a "quick

and dirty" means of alleviating at least some problems. Unlike other possible arrangements,

the Shared Regional plan has already been approved by GPO, meets the requirements of Title

44 and has an operating history. It would take relatively little time for states (those having

more than one Regional) to adapt the agreement used by South Carolina and North Dakota,

get GPO approval and agree upon the division of responsibilities (the most likely scenario

would be dividing up receipts and disposal responsibilities by agency and "oversight" by

geography.) They could then start their own weeding projects, each one of the Shared

Regional libraries weeding from those agencies for which it had relinquished responsibility

and sending disposal lists to the other Shared Regional(s). The weeding would temporarily be an extra burden on the staff but could result in substantial gains in stack space. When

disposals from Selectives resume (I would recommend temporarily suspending disposals from

Selectives while the Shared Regionals disposed between/among themselves) each of the

Shared Regionals would find their disposal lists greatly reduced with a resulting decrease in

staff tune devoted to the disposal process. And since each of the Shared Regionals would not

have to take all publications from their "non-Regional" agencies, they could drop item

numbers and save staff time with a reduction in receipts.

This "quick and dirty" solution to some of the problems of Regionals would not help the

majority of Regionals unless they could enlist other large Selectives in their states to join

them in a Shared Regional arrangement. (An alternative for some states would be to become

a Shared Regional with a library in an adjoining state-but that is a topic for another paper.)

However, it is worth pursuing for those Regionals with severe space problems which have at least one or two Selectives which could be persuaded to cooperate in such an arrangement.

This is particularly true when the Selective(s) have collections and/or clientele that are complementary rather than overlapping with the original Regional.

I have stressed processing disposals, checking in new documents, and weeding (by

former Regionals which become Shared Regionals) and the resulting freeing up of shelf space

because those processes/problems are the ones that would be helped by having a Shared

Regional within states. If shelf space and staff time for disposal processing and new

documents check in are of vital importance, setting up a Shared Regional would help.

17
AN-vl6-#04-3/15/95

However, the Shared Regional plan does not really address some of the issues brought about

by the addition to the depository program of electronic data in various formats. I think there are ways in which all Regionals can share the burdens and opportunities of digital data but I would consider confining the cooperation to libraries within state lines as artificial in the

extreme.

This assertion brings me to one conclusion I have made in pondering the reorganizing of

the Regional system. I think we need to consider separately the problems of large

retrospective collections which are outgrowing the shelf space available to Regionals and the

challenges of the new electronic era. Those libraries most able to take a lead in settmg up the

"virtual depository" of the future may not be the same as those having the hundreds of linear

feet of irreplaceable documents. Certainly there will be some that would combine major

retrospective holdings with extensive technical expertise and equipment but I question

whether the numbers of depositories that could be so described is sufficient to "carry the

load" as permanent repositories for everything AND "electronic centers" for digital data for

all depositories. I see the "Shared Regional within a state" idea as a workable plan for

alleviating the burden of disposal lists and checking in new shipments. As such, the Shared

Regional idea is well worth implementing in those states with more than one Regional and

worth exploring for those states with one Regional but with other large Selectives.

Questions:

1. Can "sharing regional responsibilities within a state" offer a solution for problems being

experienced by some or all Regionals? (my answer: yes, especially for creating stack

space by mutual disposals between/among Shared Regionals.)

2. Can the effort of creating "shared regional responsibilities with a state" be justified by

the potential benefits? (my answer: yes for at least some Regionals; the paperwork for

following the SC and ND scenario would be minimal and GPO would surely be willing

to speed up approval; the remaining effort involved finding Selectives willing to become

Shared Regionals (for those states with only one Regional) and weeding which would

have to be done under any plan for those Regionals which have space problems

(assuming the new Regional plan addresses space problems.))

3. What problems can "sharing regional responsibilities within a state" alleviate? (my

answer: space problems (weeding would free up stack space), and staffmg problems (less

staff time would be devoted to processhig disposals and checking in new receipts); other

time savings are possible but would vary among libraries concerned (i.e. sharing

electronic expertise, etc.))

4. What problems would NOT be solved by "sharing regional responsibilities within a

state"? (my answer: most of all of the problems related to government data in electronic

formats-but maybe that's because I lack the imagination to see how.)

18
AN-vl6-#04-3/ 15/95

USDA/Cornell Cooperative Project:

Implications for an "Electronic Depository"

Greg Lawrence, Cornell University

The concept of an "electronic depository library" is difficult to discuss. Just as there are widely different depositories for print materials, we can probably expect there to be similar

variations for electronic collections. Unfortunately, there are few collections of electronic

government resources available for inspection, and we are left to speculate on what a electronic depository should be.

I believe we shouldn't create libraries which are primarily Internet access pointers (such

as FEDWORLD and many federal agency gophers), and don't themselves serve up a

substantial collection of electronic monographs, serials, and databases. Depository libraries

need to create unique collections of information which are broad, deep and lasting. Also, an

electronic library shouldn't be a collection of workstations within a reference area which are inaccessible from a distance (i.e. across a state or region). An electronic library eventually

will have to evolve to the point where access to electronic documents expands beyond the

four walls of the instimtion. A basic benchmark of performance for any electronic depository

library collection will have to include some method of offsite telephone or network access to the government information it acquires. And I believe an electronic library shouldn't be

expected to be everything to everyone. It's not practical, and I suspect it just can't be done

(or at least not done well). Judicious selection of materials will probably be more important

for the evolving electronic library than pure technical know-how.

I work at Albert R. Mann Library, at Cornell University, which is very interested in the

theme of the electronic library. How my library works out its approach to the electronic

future may not coincide with your vision, but I offer it up as a focus to some of the questions

about an electronic depository library.

Mann Library has over 600 electronic titles, the majority of which are bibliographic

databases and statistical datasets. Quite a few of these titles are government produced, and

are in high demand with our primary clients, the Colleges of Agriculture and Life Sciences

and Human Ecology. All govermnent information, including electronic information, is "mainstreamed" into the various generic activities of the Library: selection, acquisitions,

cataloging and reference. We take extra effort not to make a project out of electronic

information.

The Library provides access to this body of electronic government information in a variety of ways: Internet access to agricultural economic data sets from USDA, on-site LAN

access to Census Bureau CD-ROM titles, and dedicated workstations for numerous

government titles published on either diskette or CD-ROM. Our long range plans include

making more resources Internet accessible, as well as enhancing workstations to address

hardware needs certain titles demand, such as the Digital Orthophotoquads. We provide

users with access to government produced data management software such as EXTRACT, as well as Arclnfo, dBASE, Loms 1-2-3 or Quattro Pro, and numerous other commercial

software tools. Our reference staff can supply users with ready reference support, formal

class instruction, or personal assistance in data extraction by appointment.

19
AN-vl6-#04-3/15/95

Mann Library is different than most depository libraries by the fact that we contract

directly with an agency, the USDA Economic Research Service (ERS), to provide internet access for their statistical data sets. GPO is not a partner in this arrangement. The Library's

association with ERS provides us with support not found with depository materials: direct access to agency personnel, product support, timely data acquisition, patron referral, and

notification of publishing trends. ERS gets the assistance of information professionals and

another channel of information distribution.

I've taken some questions we had to examine and tried to pose them as questions

Regional libraries may have to address:

1 . What level of electronic access does a Regional want to develop?

2. Do you expect to develop access services in-house, as a member of a cooperative

project, or will you purchase commercial services?

3. Government information spans many disciplines. Is there a core of government

information that must be made available electronically? Who decides the content of that core?

4. Is disseminating these core titles the responsibility of the regional, the selective, or both?

5. Should a Regional seek the role of coordinator of information services within its territory? Do you think the Regional needs to be technically competent to assert this role, or do you think it is more a need for skilled administration?

6. Which information should be made accessible at a specific level of access? Should this

information duplicate information held in a depository library elsewhere?

7. Can we possibly establish a uniform base level of service we will apply to all depository

libraries? Can depository libraries afford to meet those standards? Can depository libraries

afford not to?

8. Do you think GPO should be the primary broker for all your information needs, or should there be a variety of information channels. (Put another way, which is a greater evil,

less information or more chaos?).

9. Do you think electronic information dissemination standards for the DLP should originate

with depository libraries? Should they be imposed by GPO? By some other federal

authority?

20
AN-vl6-#04-3/15/95

Regional Libraries Covering More Tlian One State

Daniel O'Mahony, Brown University

Six Regional depository libraries currently service states beyond their own home state borders. (See chart below.) While all of these regionals share common responsibilities and

activities in providing regional services to selectives m other states, each situation has grown

out of and adapted to local needs and developments.

Where the multi-state concept has been most successful, there has been strong support at the regional institution by the library's administration. Many regional libraries choose to have a comprehensive collection on site in order to meet the needs of their primary

constimencies, and extend regional services to neighboring states as part of their service

function. For a cross-state arrangement to work smoothly over time, it is essential to get the

long-term commitment of the participating institutions. For some states, the cross-state regional services were part of their state plans. At least one regional library receives some

financial compensation from the outside state to help defray the costs of regional services.

Most regional librarians try to attend the major library conferences of the other state(s), some

have made site inspection visits to out-of- state libraries, and all are available for consultation

and advice via phone, e-mail, etc.

The states without regionals tend to have well-developed formal and informal networks

of cooperation and communication. Active and efficient interlibrary loan systems, shared

online catalogs, and cooperative union lists in these states help ease the burden on the out-ofstate regional. Many states collectively select 85-95 percent of the depository items, and in

most cases there exists at least one large selective (75-1- percent) within the state. The

selectives also tend to take on some of the leadership/educational/consultative roles

themselves in lieu of an in-state regional library, trying to be as self-sufficient as possible.

Most of the libraries in these states were connected to electronic networks or had Internet access.

Some common advantages to having or administering a multi-state region were identified.

For the regional library, the ability to draw from a larger pool of selectives helped when

filling gaps in the regional 's comprehensive collection. Similarly, having a larger region

widened the scope of librarians and expert staff available for regular referral, assistance, and

professional collaboration. This can be especially important in sharing expertise about new

technologies, etc. (where the regional might not necessarily be the "lead" library). The

overall cost savings to the program by having fewer comprehensive collections was

mentioned, especially in areas where the population was relatively small. For the selectives

in states without regionals, the most obvious advantage was reaping the benefits of being

serviced by a regional library, most notably, permitting them to discard materials and having

a familiar contact for program advice, interpretation, and consultation.

Servicing depositories outside a library's home state, however, does place additional

burdens on the regional library. Areas and operations that are already problematic (e.g.,

discard lists) can be exacerbated by out-of-state demands. Without formal compensation,

services to out-of-state libraries may be seen in competition with services to in-state

depositories, especially in times of limited/declining budgets. Also, as the geographic service

21
AN-vl6-#04-3/15/95'

area of a regional library widens, it becomes more difficult to visit the selective depositories,

and more difficult for staff in remote libraries to participate in regional activities. Electronic

mail, teleconferencing, and videoconferencing are examples of some of the ways regionals

are trying to overcome the distance problems.

A variety of other suggestions were offered which apply to the operation and

administration of the program as a whole, not just the multi-state regional concept. Some

librarians called into question the need for a "comprehensive" collection in each state,

suggesting that we rethink which items need to reside in every state versus simply be

available somewhere from just a few locations. The notion of a "national depository library"

was also suggested, as was the idea of dividing up some materials based on subject strength.

Most librarians agreed that the system should accommodate some type of cooperative

collection plan (e.g., USGS DOQs, DOE fiche). Others, however, pointed out the

advantages to having deliberately redundant or overlapping collections in one state or region.

Many librarians called for more flexibility and creativity in treating discards.

Questions/issues for consideration:

a. In a multi-state system or a system that is not strictly bound by state borders, how should

"regions" be determined? What is a reasonable definition of a "region" (number of

libraries, geographic area, other)?

b. Is it necessary to have comprehensive collections in each state?

c. How might the discard/retention requirements be revised to make the system more

responsive to library needs while still meeting the program obligation for accountability

and collection coverage.

d. When is cooperative collection development most useful, and how might cooperative

collection management policies and agreements be developed/administered/supported/

enforced?

e. How might specific services (educational, consultative) performed by regionals be shared

among libraries in the region (or nationally)?

f. What level and kinds of compensation/support should be required as part of carrying out

regional responsibilities (staffing, hardware, etc.)? How can/should such

compensation/support be funded (federally, libraries in region, etc.)?

22
AN-vl6-#04-3/15/95

STATES SHARING REGIONAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARIES WITH OTHER STATES

I STATES #Select. #Cong. Population Area

Reg. Dists. (1000 sq.mi.)

Non-Reg.

CT 21 6 3,287,116 4.8

RI 12 2 1,003,464 1.0

Total 33 8 4,290,580 5.8

ME 11 2 1,227,928 30.9

NH 9 2 1,109,252 9.0

VT 8 _J 562,758 92

Total 28 5

' 2,899,938 49T

MD 20 (23)* 8 4,781,468 9.7

DE 5 1 666,168 1.9

DC 16 (49)* 1 606,900

Total 41 (77)* lO " 6,054,536 TTl

MN 25 8 4,375,099 79.6

SD 10 1 696,004 75.9

Total 55 9 5,071,103 155.5

UT 10 3 1,722,850 82.2

WY 10 1 453,588 97.1

Total 20 ? 2,176,438 Tl93

WA 21 9 4,866,692 66.6

AK 91 550,043 570.4

Total 30 To 5,416,735 WW

* Numbers in parentheses include Federal agency depository libraries.

Note: The following regionals were not included in this study: PL (serves Panama, Puerto

Rico, Virgin Islands) and HI (serves American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands).

23
AN-vl6-#04-3/15/95

Operational Issues

Paul Pattwell, Newark Public Library

Collection Development:

Except for the recent USGS orthoquad compact discs, Regionals have always been

required to receive and permanently retain all items offered through the Federal Depository

Library Program. The only items allowed to be discarded are superseded items and one

format of an item if the same item is received in more than one format.

As a result, Regionals have to cope with finding sufficient housing (shelving, fiche

cabinets, map cabinets, CD cabinets, etc.) to store an always expanding 100% depository

collection. Regionals cannot always predict how much expansion space will be needed on a short-term or long-term basis, since the volume of material received is directly related to the

ebb and flow of government information (e.g. the huge surge of DOE fiche in the mid-80s).

Some Regionals are able to relieve the pressure for space by farming out portions of the

depository collection to other libraries via selective housing agreements.

Regionals also need sufficient staff to adequately accession, process, and catalog their

complete depository collections. The materials must be retrievable, because Regional

collections are expected to be the collection of last resort for their area; likewise, Regionals

are expected to keep their depository collections as intact as possible in order to service

selective depositories. Regionals are expected to aggressively provide for the binding of

appropriate depository materials.

If Regionals continue to receive all items distributed in electronic formats, it will be very

difficult for most of them to mount, display, and interpret every item in order to provide

public access. It is extremely unlikely that many Regionals will be able to provide complete

public access to all the government databases being proposed as depository items, at least for

the short term.

Disposition of Government Publications:

A selective depository cannot dispose of any depository publication (except one that has

been superseded) without the approval of its Regional. This can be a tremendous burden for

many Regionals, especially those with many selectives in their area. Although the idea

behind the procedure is to assure that the Regional can fill in any gaps in its collection and

then make discarded publications available to other libraries, it can become a major

administrative component in a Regional 's workflow and demand a substantial amount of

professional and clerical staff time.

Depository Inspections:

Regionals are expected to accompany GPO Inspectors on their inspections of selective

depositories in their areas. There are obvious benefits ~ a greater understanding of specific

selective depositories' needs, problenis, and accomplishments; the ability to act as an

24
AN-vl6-#04-3/15/95

interface between the Inspector and the selective; etc. However, since GPO provides no

financial assistance to Regionals to perform this function, it can be very difficult for a Regional to obtain the funding to cover incurred expenses. As with depository disposition

problems, the disparity between Regionals ~ specifically the size of the Regional area and the

number of selectives within the area ~ makes for an extremely uneven balance of

administrative responsibilities from one Regional to the next. What is an acceptable workload

for one Regional can be impossible for another. The result is that selective depositories across the nation receive a wide variety of assistance from their Regionals; likewise,

Regionals are not consistent in performing their administrative obligations.

Other Issues:

Will all of the above responsibilities to contend with, it is difficult for many Regionals to adequately deal with the other obligations that are part of Regional designation. Although

many do their best to consult with their selectives on a one-to-one basis as needed, there are not always the resources available to construct more formal outreach programs, cooperative

plans, etc.

In General:

Regionals are required to do everything selectives do, but on a larger scale, as well as be

responsible for obligations required only of Regionals. This is occurring during an extended

period of reduced library funding, less staffing, and an overall decline in available resources.

Although Regionals genuinely want to do everything, there is just too much to be done.

As the depository system, especially the distribution of government information, has

expanded and grown, GPO does not appear to have attempted to reduce Regional

responsibilities at all. The latest rounds of inspections indicate that GPO unrealistically

expects Regionals to continue doing just as much and in some cases (requiring Regionals to respond to surveys) even more.

25
AN-vl6-#04-3/15/95

Possible Title 44 Revision

6P0 Staff

Following are some of our general thoughts regarding the question of what can be done

under existing law. Under the Printing Act of 1962, provisions for regional depository

libraries were added under 44 U.S. C. section 1912. Since that time precedents for several

models have been put in place.

1. Two regionals per state, e.g., Micliigan, Alabama, Oklahoma, etc.

2. One regional in a state, e.g., California, North Carolina, Ohio, etc.

3. One regional serving several states or U.S. territories, e.g., Maine, Minnesota,

Florida, etc.

4. Shared regionals, i.e. two libraries in one state which together select 100%, e.g.. North Dakota and South Carolina.

5. One fall regional in a state and one shared regional, e.g., Wisconsin.

Under the existing precedents and approval process under section 1912, there is no

reason why some states with a large number of depositories to serve, e.g., California, New

York, Illinois, etc., could not adopt option #1, 4, or 5. Several libraries in these states select

between 80-95% of the available items numbers right now.

Due to financial, space, equipment, and staffing exigencies in many states, one library,

in a state with two regionals and serving a proportionately smaller number of selective

depositories and population, could voluntarily relinquish regional depository status but retain a high selection rate.

Selective housing for large documents series, e.g., maps and DOE microfiche to name

two, have been in place in New Jersey, Michigan, Connecticut, etc., for some time. Their

partners then retain and service the "regional" collection. This scenario has been expanded

to include electronic deliverables such as TIGER/Line files and DOQs.

Some states with relatively new regionals, e.g., Tennessee, Arkansas, etc., have

negotiated agreements for cooperative archival collections as part of their State Plans.

Selective libraries in their states retain the major retrospective series and act as the "regional"

to service the materials. Using this scenario, key libraries within a state, by negotiated

agreement, could serve as the regional for future electronic deliverables.

Under existing law, there is the potential for "super regionals" in sections of the country

but not in the way the Ad hoc Committee envisions. Expanding option 3 in New England,

two of the three regionals serving the six states could give up regional stams but still select a high percentage of item numbers to fulfill the "just in time" rather than "just in case"

philosophy.

26
AN-vl6-#04-3/15/95

With electronic dissemination, whether on-line or off-line products, the potential

government locators, storage facilities, on-demand publishing, etc., it certainly appears that

there will be justification to use Title 44, U.S.C., section 1914, which states "The Public

Printer, with the approval of the Joint Committee on Printing, ... may use any measures he

considers necessary for the economical and practical implementation of this chapter.

We have discussed these matters with the GPO Office of General Counsel. They will

work with us to provide guidance on what may be permissible under Title 44 but would like

specific proposals from the Ad hoc Committee on which to respond.

DLC Ad Hoc Committee on Regional Structure

Members

Tom Andersen

California State Library

tanderse@library.ca.gov

Greg Lawrence

Cornell University

GWLl@cornell.edu

Phone: 607-255-3242

Fax: 607-255-0318

Phone: 916-653-0085

Fax: 916-654-0241

Gary Cornwell, Chair

University of Florida

garcorn@nervm. nerdc . ufl . edu

Daniel O'Mahony

Brown University

ap20 1 1 5 9@brownvm. brown. edu

Phone: 401-863-2522

Fax: 401-863-1272

Phone: 904-392-0366

Fax: 904-392-7251

Cynthia Etkin

Western Kentucky University

etkin@wkyuvm. wku. edu

Phone: 502-745-6175

Fax: 502-745-5943

Paul Pattwell

Newark Public Library

pattwell@pilot.njin.net

Phone: 201-733-7812

Fax: 201-733-5648

Maureen Harris

Clemson University

maureen@clemson. edu

Jay Young/Sheila McGarr

Government Printing Office

inspect@access . digex . net

Phone: 803-656-5174

Fax: 803-656-3025

Phone: 202-512-1119

Fax: 202-512-1432

27
AN-vl6-#04-3/15/95

Table of Contents

Make Your Reservations for the Spring 1995 Depository

Library Council Meeting 1 Depository Library Council Meeting Agenda, Spring 1995 2

Depository Library Council Members, Revised February 22, 1995 5

DLC Ad Hoc Committee on Regional Structure

Depository Library Council Meeting 7

Vision Statement for Regional Depositories , . 9

Operational Issues / Tom Andersen 12

Subject-Based Collections: Issues for Regional/National

Coverage / Cindy Etkin 14

States With More Than One Regional / Carol Gordon 16

Libraries Sharing Regional Responsibilities Within a State / Maureen Harris 17

USDA/Cornell Cooperative Project: Implications for an "Electronic

Depository" / Greg Lawrence 19

Regional Libraries Covering More Than One State / Daniel O'Mahony 21

Operational Issues / Paul Pattwell 24

Possible Title 44 Revision / GPO Staff 26

DLC Ad Hoc Committee on Regional Structure: Members 27

Administrative Notes is published in Washington, DC by the Superintendent of

Documents, Library Programs Service, Government Printing Office, for the staffs of U.S. Federal Depository Libraries. It is published on the 15th day of each month; some months have additional issues. Postmaster send address changes to: The Editor, Administrative Notes

U.S. Government Printing Office

Library Programs Service, SLL

Washington, D.C. 20401

Editor: Marian W. MacGilvray (202) 512-1130

28