Administrative Notes

Newsletter of the Federal Depository Library Program

Vol. 23, no. 10 GP 3.16/3-2:23/10 August 1, 2002

HIGHLIGHTS

Public Printer

Statement 1

Spring Council

Summary 15

Council

Presentations on

GPO Access 24

Michael F. DiMario

Public Printer

Prepared Statement before the

Joint Committee on Printing

On

Office of Management and Budget Memorandum M-02-07

"Printing and Duplicating Through

The Government Printing Office"

Wednesday, July 10, 2002

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Joint Committee on Printing (JCP),

thank you for inviting me here this morning to present the views of the

Government Printing Office (GPO) on Office of Management and

Budget (0MB) Memorandum M-02-07, "Printing and Duplicating

Through the Government Printing Office," issued May 3, 2002.

This will probably be the last time I have the privilege of testifying

before Congress. As you know, the President has announced his

intention to nominate Mr. Bruce James as Public Printer, and we fully

expect that action will go forward. I've met with Mr. James and offered

him whatever assistance he needs from GPO to prepare for his

prospective duties.

Because I'm an appointee of the previous administration, some people

might think the position I'm taking today is political. However, my

views on 0MB's memorandum are no different from the views I

expressed in 1994 in hearings before the Senate Committee on Rules and

Administration on the Clinton Administration's initiative to "reinvent"

Government printing.
AN-v23-#l0-8/1/02

This is not a political issue. It’s a question

of how best to apply the Government's

limited, taxpayer-financed resources to

achieving the lowest possible cost in printing

services and the broadest, most equitable

dissemination of Government information to

the public.

If I thought that decentralizing authority for

printing throughout the executive branch

would reduce costs and improve public

access to Government information I'd say

so, but I firmly believe it won't. Based on

my 30 years with GPO, I believe our current

system—a system that has functioned in the

public's interest for more than a century—is

the best way of achieving those objectives.

As you know, our current system is based

on section 501 of Title 44, U.S.C., which

requires executive branch agencies to obtain

their printing from GPO. Relying on GPO

limits the need for duplicative and costly

production facilities throughout the

Government. The concentrated purchasing

power of GPO's printing procurement

program achieves significant taxpayer

savings in one of the Government's most

successful small business-oriented

procurement programs ever. Finally, GPO

ensures comprehensive and equitable access

to Government information through a variety

of Superintendent of Documents programs,

the most prominent of which involves our

partnership with a network of hundreds of

Federal depository libraries located in

virtually every congressional district

nationwide. At the bottom line, GPO saves

taxpayer money and makes taxpayer-funded

Government information broadly and

systematically available for use by the

public.

Throughout GPO's history, GPO has carried

out its mission in a non-partisan, serviceoriented environment that emphasizes the

primacy of the Government's customer's

requirements for timeliness, quality,

security, and economy. GPO has a record

of providing public access to Government

information that is unmatched by any other

Federal agency, indeed by few institutions in

the world. GPO is a staple of the Federal

service, and of the American public's

expectation of that service.

OMB's memorandum, by contrast, is an

attempt to devolve authority for printing

executive branch documents away from GPO

and to the agencies themselves, directly

contravening current law. In doing so, it

lays the groundwork for the emergence of

wasteful, duplicative printing operations in

every department, agency, and bureau of the

far-flung executive branch. Under OMB's

memorandum, we would lose our current

ability to identify the publications agencies

produce and capture them in a systematic

way for meaningful access by the millions of

students, scientists, businesspersons, and

others who use Government information

every year.

For those who are interested in history, a

decentralized printing system is essentially

what existed before GPO was created—in

1860. With Government printing today

costing (by OMB's own figures) a billion

dollars or more a year, and with public 

access to Government information more

important than ever, this is a policy that the

Government and the public can ill afford.

OMB didn't consult us on developing this

memorandum, and in fact much of what it

contains has been proposed before by the

Reagan Administration in 1987 and then

2
AN-v23-#10-8/l/02

again by the Clinton Administration in 1994.

Both times, the idea of decentralizing

printing authority throughout the executive

branch was rejected by Congress—

emphatically, through the enactment of

annual and then permanent legislation that

today is codified as a note to section 501 of

Title 44. This legislation was passed to

prevent significant cost increases in Federal 

printing, forestall adverse economic impacts

on small business printing contractors, and

maintain effective public access to

Government information. These same

concerns pertain to OMB's memorandum.

OMB's Memorandum. OMB’s

memorandum authorizes agencies to procure

their own printing directly from the private

sector, regardless of whether they have the

capability of doing so as cost-effectively as

GPO. It also authorizes agencies to use inhouse printing and duplicating facilities to

produce their printing (and presumably to

establish such facilities ifthey do not already

have them), as long as they can justify the

cost. They would also be authorized to use

in-house facilities in other agencies, under

so-called "cross-servicing" agreements.

Under OMB's memorandum, GPO could be

used on an optional basis only. We've also

heard that as part of the new printing policy

the executive branch intends to stop

observing the requirement in section 1121 of

Title 44 that agencies in the District of

Columbia obtain blank paper and envelopes

through GPO, a change that will deprive

them of the economies they currently enjoy

through GPO's bulk purchasing power.

A final footnote in the memorandum, added

almost as an afterthought, reminds agencies

they are still obligated to follow statutory

requirements on depository library

distribution through GPO's Superintendent

of Documents. It doesn't inform them,

however, that under current law they—not 

GPO—would then bear the costs of those

publications, currently estimated at $4.2

million annually.

The memorandum hasn't taken effect yet.

OMB has asked that the Federal Acquisition

Regulation (FAR)—the procurement rules

for executive branch agencies—be revised;

we hear that the Defense Acquisition

Resource Council and the Civilian Agency

Acquisition Council, the entities responsible

for the revision, are working on the

revision.

We have presumed that a FAR revision

would be accompanied by a public notice

and comment period under the provisions of

the Administrative Procedures Act, and we

are prepared to submit our comments. For

those agencies not covered by the FAR,

OMB has indicated a target date of

September 1, 2002, for implementation.

OMB has based its memorandum on a 1996

Justice Department opinion regarding the

constitutionality of executive agencies using

GPO. I've testified on this opinion many

times before both House and Senate

committees. As I said then, I don't agree

with it, but this is neither the time nor the

place to argue this matter. In my view, 

unless or until Congress or a Federal court

with appropriate jurisdiction changes Title 

44, the law requiring executive agencies to

use GPO remains in effect. I think it's

simply wrong to undermine the statutorily

based management of the Government's

printing and documents distribution

functions with the issuance of a

contradictory administrative regulation in the

FAR that is based only on the Justice

Department's opinion.

3
AN-v23-#10-8/1/02

The Myth of a GPO ’’Monopoly.” OMB's

memorandum claims GPO is a ’’monopoly."

The fact is that GPO is not the sole provider

of printing and dissemination services in the

Federal Government. Many executive

branch agencies have statutory authority to

print their own publications and others have

dissemination authority. Throughout the

executive branch there are also an untold

number of printing and duplicating facilities.

At last count, more than 200 of these

facilities at one time had been authorized to

operate by the JCP, and the last survey of

agency printing and duplicating facilities—

performed during the Reagan

Administration—identified more than 1,000

such operations.

Based on OMB's own budget figures for all

Federal printing and reproduction expenses

for FY 2001, there's a significant amount of

printing going on in the Government that

isn't coming through GPO; our assumption

is that these facilities are doing it. As

previous congressional testimony by GPO

and others has pointed out, many of the

problems associated with Government

printing policy today—the high costs

associated with wasteful and duplicative

agency printing facilities, the role these

facilities play in reducing contract

opportunities for private sector printers, and

"fugitive documents"—are traceable to the

fact that there are too many Government

printing facilities, not too few.

Also dispelling the myth that GPO is a

"monopoly" is the fact that we actually

procure from private sector printers

approximately three-quarters of all the 

printing requisitions we receive. Our

printing procurement program subjects these

requisitions to the highly competitive

economic forces of the marketplace. GPO

has been procuring printing since before

World War II, and since the 1960's the

majority of printing orders have been sent to

the private sector.

GPO’s Procurement Program:

’’Government At Its Best." As recently as

1998, a $1.5 million management audit of

GPO by Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc.,

working under contract to the General

Accounting Office (GAO) at the direction of

the House and Senate Appropriations

Committees, found "universal support" in

the executive branch for the GPO’s printing

procurement program. Booz-Allen had been

directed by Congress to consider if there

were alternative ways the Government's

printing could be managed.

Instead, Booz-Allen said of GPO’s executive

agency customers, "These agencies viewed

this service that GPO provides as an

example of 'Government at its best,' and

none of them felt that they wanted to or

could do this function better than GPO."

(The report also recommended areas for 

improvement at GPO, and in the subsequent

years GPO acted on nearly 80% them). The

Printing Industries of America, Inc.,

recently said, "GPO charges fees that most

printers would agree are rock-bottom."

Rather than build additional Government

plant capacity, GPO’s printing procurement

program takes advantage of available

capacity in the private sector, holding down

the Government's costs. We buy openly and

competitively from a master bid list of

10,000-12,000 private sector printing firms

nationwide, representing about a quarter of

the printing industry and as many as 240,000

workers. Most of the companies with whom

we do business are classified as small

4
AN-v23-#10-8/l/02

businesses (including small disadvantaged

businesses).

This universe of potential vendors results in

intense competition for printing jobs,

yielding the lowest possible prices. GPO is

able to maximize its central buying power 

under these conditions, grouping together

orders for similar products from different

agencies under term contracts that are then

bid out to the lowest bidder. In FY 2001,

GPO contracted with commercial printers to

ship nearly 148,000 printing jobs and

achieved a 98.2 percent on-time delivery

rate. This work represented over $400

million in contracts. More than 70% of the

orders were produced by small business

printing firms.

OMB apparently thinks that its memorandum

will simply transfer a function now being

performed by GPO to the agencies, where it

will be performed equally as well.

However, buying printing is not like buying

paper clips. In an age when Federal

procurement policy is increasingly geared to

"off-the-shelf’ buying, it's easily forgotten

that printing is essentially a custom business.

Copy preparation, trim size, paper quality,

ink colors, run length, due date, distribution

plan, and a host of other factors come into

play to affect price. Anyone who thinks that

getting the best price for printing requires no

more than a quick trip to the local copy

center is seriously misinformed. Knowledge

of and experience with printing requirements

and processes are essential to obtain the best

possible value. GPO has the knowledge and

experience to buy printing economically. As

Booz-Allen found, agencies don't have that

expertise (“none of them felt that they

wanted to or could do this function better

than GPO”).

GPO's Procurement Fees. While OMB

objects to our fee for buying printing, its

memorandum is unclear about the extent to

which the rush surcharge is applied, doesn't

mention anything about the services GPO

provides in exchange, significantly

overstates the total amount paid by executive

branch agencies annually for GPO's

procurement service, and implies that

somehow the assumption by agencies of

their own print buying responsibilities would

be cost-free.

In section 309 of Title 44, Congress

mandated that GPO charge customer

agencies for the cost of services provided.

In accordance with the law, and verified by

GAO review, we support our procurement

program through a surcharge that covers the 

cost of services provided. When agencies

procure printing through us, we add a

nominal surcharge of 7 % (on amounts up to

$285,715; the surcharge declines thereafter)

to the cost of the job. The surcharge is

GPO's only source of funds for these

services; no funds are appropriated by

Congress to support them.

For certain rush jobs, a surcharge of 14% is

applied (also up to a ceiling and declining

thereafter) instead of the 7 % surcharge, but

OMB's memorandum fails to report that the 

rush surcharge is rarely used, principally

because generally our procurement

turnaround times are very rapid. So quick

are turnaround times, in fact, that in FY 

2001 the rush surcharge was added to only

2.9% of all procurement job orders.

Moreover, our contracting officers report

that the rush surcharge was virtually always

added at the request of ordering agencies in

order to move their jobs to the front of the 

procurement queue.

5
AN-v23-#10-8/l/02

GPO's procurement surcharge does not

represent profit. It covers the cost of a

package of specialized printing procurement

support services: GPO reviews requisitions

and offers suggestions for economizing;

develops specifications; competes, awards,

and administers contracts; performs press

inspections and other on-site reviews to

assure quality; performs post-production

quality control reviews utilizing a unique

print-quality ranking program that is widely

recognized throughout the printing industry;

provides voucher examination and payment

services; conducts Inspector General audits

of any alleged contractor irregularities; and

makes available legal advice on contracting

as well as a dispute resolution service

through GPO’s Board of Contract Appeals.

A full list of these services is attached.

Agency staffs and program offices are

increasingly looking to GPO for help in

determining their printing needs, particularly

as the executive branch has experienced a

high turnover rate in their printing

professionals. Agencies know today that

GPO provides an extraordinary range of

capabilities to handle virtually any

Government printing need imaginable.

OMB is undoubtedly aware of these

capabilities, having relied on them itselfjust

a few months ago in the production and ontime delivery of the U.S. Budget for FY

2003.

The Federal entities with which GPO does

business are currently represented by

approximately 6,300 billing address codes in

all three branches of Government, with the

preponderant number in the executive

branch. For each of these entities to

maintain the same universe of contractors

and provide the same level of procurement

support for printing as GPO would be

extraordinarily expensive. If each were to

devote just one-tenth of a full-time staff year

to these functions would require nearly 630

employees Governmentwide, nearly twice

the number of GPO's 330 printing

procurement employees.

In addition to the nominal surcharge, for

each job we also charge a flat processing fee

of $7.50 ($15.00 for the rare rushsurcharged order), whether the job is worth 

$100 or $1 million. This fee helps recover

procurement costs on small dollar orders.

Approximately 85% of all procurement

orders in FY 2001 were valued at $2,500 or

less. The total amount of fees collected by

our printing procurement program in FY

2001 was $32.5 million, not $50 million to

$70 million, as OMB claims.

OMB's memorandum also suggests that our

retention of prompt payment discounts is

somehow improper. This is an old issue,

one that has been resolved repeatedly in

GPO's favor by the GAO (Comptroller

General Decisions B-238495, B-276509). In

FY 2001, GPO earned prompt payment

discounts of $6.6 million (an effective rate

of 1.5%, not 5% as OMB claims). We 

make prompt payments due to our

specialization in dealing with private sector

printers, using efficient electronic payment

systems. We pay contractors promptly upon

evidence of performance; the ensuing

collection by GPO from the agency

sometimes takes longer (in the mid-1990's,

for example, the DOD was in arrears on 

about one-third of its printing payments to

GPO, with $13 million in late payments

ranging from 3 to 24 months past due). By

making quick payment, GPO keeps printing

costs low. Otherwise, delays in payments to

printers would increase the cost of future

printing orders.

6
AN-v23-#10-8/l/02

Economies from Using GPO’s

Procurement Services. OMB apparently

hasn't calculated the economies that accrue

to agencies from using GPO. For the

nominal procurement surcharge, the

Government obtains great value, whether on

large complex jobs or small orders.

Because of the ceiling on the surcharge,

significant economies are achieved on large,

highly complex printing jobs. For example,

the printing supporting Census 2000

involved more than 80 contracts worth more

than $65 million for short form and long

form versions of the mail-out questionnaires,

update questionnaires, and enumerator 

questionnaires, as well as "be counted"

questionnaires, advance letters, reminder

cards, language assistance guides, and other

questionnaires and public use forms. Some

of the materials were printed in 6 different

languages (English, Korean, Spanish,

Vietnamese, Chinese, and Tagalog), and

foreign language guides in 49 different 

languages were produced to assist in filling

out other materials. The work was

performed by dozens of private sector

contractors in 17 states, requiring different 

due dates and distribution instructions.

GPO's total charge for this work was

$587,000, equivalent to a surcharge of less

than 1%.

Another example is IRS work. During FY

2001, the GPO made 230 contract awards to

private sector printers across the Nation for

IRS's special tax program orders. For 124

million notices and self-mailers, GPO's bill

to IRS was $3.3 million; the surcharge was

$34,658, or 1%. For 13.6 million TeleFile

Tax packages, GPO's bill was $1.3 million;

the surcharge was $24,862, or 1.9%. For

17 million Instructions for Estimated Tax,

GPO's bill was $3 million; the surcharge

was $33,517, or 1%.

Last year, for the Health Care Financing

Administration (now the Center for

Medicare and Medicaid Services), GPO

procured more than 19 million Medicare and

You 2002 handbooks on three separate rush

orders. GPO's bill was about $5.4 million

for the three jobs; the total surcharge was

$190,988, or about 3.5%.

On the smaller jobs that comprise the vast

majority of GPO's procurement work, the

savings made possible through our program

more than offset the cost of the surcharge.

For example, an agency recently had been

given an estimate of $20,000 for 2,000

copies of an 8-page, saddle stitched

pamphlet, printing 4-color process but using

non-standard paper. GPO recommended

changing to a standard paper that met their

requirements, then procured the job for

$2,650, saving $17,350, or 86%, from the 

original estimate. In another example, a

quick-turnaround job for an agency had been

bid at $5,772 and $6,663 by two local copy

shops associated with a national chain. GPO

procured the job for delivery within the

agency's tight deadline for $1,938, saving

$3,834, or 66%.

In another, GPO took a requirement for 3

million copies of a 2-sided, 2-color card that

had been estimated by the agency at $25,000

and procured it for $9,943, saving $15,057

or 60%. In yet another, GPO suggested

splitting a direct mail piece for an agency

into two separate jobs, so that each could go

to printers best suited to the type of work,

saving $68,309 or nearly 50%. Savings of

the magnitude generated by GPO's printing

procurement program more than offset the

7
AN-v23-#l0-8/1/02

cost of GPO's surcharge to executive branch

agencies.

The anecdotal examples of GPO saving

significant sums for Federal agencies are

abundant, and we'd be pleased to provide

more. We don't claim that every job we

procure results in savings like these, and in

the millions upon millions of procurement

jobs we've handled for agencies over the

years we readily admit there have been

problems, due sometimes to contractors,

sometimes to mistakes we have made, and

sometimes to customer agencies themselves.

However, the proven practice of GPO's

procurement program has demonstrated time

and again that this program saves money for

Federal agencies and the taxpayers.

GPO Savings/Improvements for Customer

Agencies. In recent years, productivity

increases resulting from technology have

enabled us to make substantial reductions in

staffing requirements while continuing to

improve services. In the mid-1970's, we

employed more than 8,200 persons. Today,

we have approximately 3,000 employees,

fewer than at any time in the past century.

Since I became Public Printer in 1993, we

have reduced staffing by 38 %, resulting in

an annual savings equivalent today to $100.7

million. Staff reductions in our printing

procurement area have been even greater:

42%. These savings are passed on to our

customers.

We're continuously implementing

procurement improvements for our customer

agencies. Electronic printing procurement

bid solicitations, for example, have been

accessible online for several years via our

Web site, enabling more contractors to bid 

on Government printing jobs, increasing

competition and lowering procurement costs.

We devised direct deal contracts to provide

agencies with greater flexibility in placing

their printing orders. A recent innovation to

those contracts are simplified purchase

agreements, a form of "best value"

contracting under which GPO provides 

agencies with rosters of available vendors in

local areas from which agencies may select

to obtain specified printing or duplicating

needs. We're now developing a Webenabled capability for these purchase

agreements.

We're upgrading our Procurement

Information Control System (PICS), which

agencies have used for years to track the

status of their procurement orders, to a

Web-enabled environment. We offer deposit

accounts that allow agencies to place funds

with GPO and track their printing costs

online against them 24 hours a day, 7 days a

week, eliminating paperwork and

streamlining the billing and collecting

process. Today there are about 250 deposit

accounts totaling nearly $46 million,

including pilot programs we're currently

running for the White House. There's no

charge to agencies for using deposit

accounts.

Other changes in procurement practices have

recently been advocated by the printing

industry, such as greater use of "best value"

contracting, "bundling" contracts for

information services, using Requests for

Proposals on large contracts, and contracting

for the management of agency printing and

duplicating facilities. We certainly are

willing to explore alternative contracting

options to the extent that they improve

services for GPO's customers and do not

hinder competitive participation in GPO’s

printing procurement program.

8
AN-V23-#10-8/1/02

Cost Impacts from OMB's Memorandum.

We have no way of knowing how much

executive branch work would be withdrawn

from GPO under OMB's policy. If we were

to lose all executive branch work, the

impacts could be significant. Previous

studies by the GAO, the Office of

Technology Assessment, the JCP, GPO, and

others have found that decentralizing 

authority for printing among executive

branch agencies could lead to significant cost

increases in Government printing.

Two months ago, we were asked by the

Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on

Legislative Branch Appropriations to prepare

a scenario of the cost impact that the OMB

memorandum could have on GPO

operations. While OMB claims there will be

savings from its initiative, our analysis—

which is based on the findings of previous 

studies—shows that the cost to the

Government could potentially increase over

current levels by some $230 million to $330

million in the first year, and from $150

million to $250 million annually thereafter:

• The most significant cost increase

would occur if agencies decide to

produce work that GPO currently

contracts out in their own printing and

duplicating facilities. Although OMB

says this option would be subject to

cost-justification, we doubt this will

constrain agencies very much. Faced

with having to set up print buying

systems like GPO's, we think many

agencies will simply opt to use their

existing facilities instead. Most agency

accounting systems are not as

sophisticated as GPO's in capturing all

the costs associated with printing, and

it would be relatively easy for them to

justify in-house production of their

printing needs.

• If agencies use their own printing and

duplicating facilities, some previous

studies have indicated that it can be as

much as 50% more expensive

compared to contracting out work

through GPO. (On top of the cost of

duplicative equipment and facilities,

agency facilities tend to be less

productive and they generally bear

higher employee and overhead costs

than do private sector firms.) Based on

current procurement costs, executive

branch printing costs could increase by

more than $200 million annually ifall

agency work currently procured by

GPO were produced instead in agency

printing and duplicating facilities.

• If agencies decide to procure work

themselves from the private sector,

they will still incur costs. Agencies

would be required to perform the same

contract-support services that GPO

provides. However, without GPO's

economies of scale, agency

procurement costs are likely to be

substantially higher than GPO's. (A

1997 Inspector General review of the

National Institutes of Health (NIH),

which has its own printing authority by

law, disclosed that NIH's procurement

costs ran between 10% and 18%, more

than double GPO's surcharge.)

Agencies are also unlikely to maintain

the same universe of competition

among private sector printers that GPO

achieves; the resulting decrease in

competition would increase prices.

• Having to deal with hundreds of

entities in the executive branch buying

9
AN-v23-#10-8/l/02

printing would also impose new costs

on the printing industry. Printers

would have to learn how to deal with a

procurement process established by the

FAR, under which, among other

things, jobs valued at more than

$25,000 would be subjected to

competition from NAFTA trading 

partners (printing procurements under

GPO's Printing Procurement

Regulation, on the other hand, are

subject to the provisions of the Buy

America Act). With the loss of GPO's

one-stop-shopping alternative for

contracts, they would be forced to

increase their costs to locate

contracting opportunities among the

multitude of agencies seeking vendors.

In 1994, a coalition ofGPO

contractors suggested that printing

costs could increase by as much as

25%, or more than $100 million, if

agencies attempt to procure work

themselves rather than through GPO's

system.

• Our review shows that the removal of

executive branch revenues from GPO

would increase the cost of remaining 

work. Roughly two-thirds of GPO's

revenues today are from executive

branch products, including products

printed at GPO, those that are

procured, and those that are

disseminated by the Superintendent of

Documents. Losing these revenues,

which help to cover GPO'sfixed costs,

would increase the cost ofremaining

work—primarily congressional

printing—by nearly two-thirds, or

nearly $50 million annually.

• Our review also shows that losing all

revenues from executive branch

products would impact GPO's

employees. Without those revenues,

we would be forced to reduce our

workforce by approximately 50%, or

1,500 staff. Ifthis reduction had to be

achieved rapidly, we would have to

implement a combination ofbuy-outs

and a reduction-in-force (RIF), at a

one-time cost ofnearly $80 million.

There could be other, non-quantifiable

impacts on Government printing under a

system of decentralized printing. There

would be no central responsibility for 

applying uniform standards of print quality.

There would be no central responsibility for

monitoring the application of statutory

requirements for the use of recycled paper,

alkaline and permanent papers, and

vegetable oil-based printing inks. Also, with

the prospect of reduced printing jobs flowing

to the private sector, or increased costs for

those jobs, the financial stability of many

small business printing firms could be

jeopardized. The majority ofjobs (worth

$2,500 or less) could be purchased by

agency personnel non-competitively using

Government credit cards, a system that

OMB itself recently admitted is subject to

abuse. Such purchasing could easily lead to

increased opportunities for favoritism and

corruption in Federal print buying.

Impact on Public Access to Government

Information. There would also be a

significant impact on public access to

Government information. Under the current

system, the link between the production and

distribution of Government documents in

GPO is the source of publications for GPO's

Federal Depository Library Program

(FDLP), as well as GPO's cataloging and

indexing program, statutory distribution

program, and international exchange

io
AN-v23-#10-8/l/02

program. Even GPO Access uses the system

to monitor for new publications.

Although OMB would require agencies to

continue providing publications for

depository distribution, we think compliance

with this requirement would be low.

Publications that belong in the FDLP and

related programs but are not included are

called "fugitive documents." As the library

community knows, this is a longstanding

problem. It's extremely difficult to develop

an accurate assessment of the extent of

fugitive documents. Previous estimates have

placed the rate of fugitive documents in the

neighborhood of 50%, which corresponds

roughly to the amount of Federal printing we

estimate does not come through GPO, but no

one really knows.

Regardless, there would be strong likelihood

for an increase in fugitive documents with

the decentralization of printing authority to

Federal agencies. Decentralization would

depend on the widely varying performance

of hundreds of different entities throughout

the executive branch to capture documents

for the depository program, rather than the

simple administrative mechanism of

processing publications for printing and

distribution through GPO. A 1998 Inspector 

General review of NIH's conformance with

depository requirements—the same

requirements under which the OMB

memorandum would place all executive

agencies—found that 78% of NIH's

publications that qualified for depository

distribution were not being provided to the

Superintendent of Documents as required by

law.

The fact that electronic information

dissemination is now widespread does not

mitigate this concern. There is still a

substantial amount of Government

information for which no reliable online

alternative exists, and problems with

ensuring permanence and other issues are

still present for many online products. In

FY 2001, GPO distributed a total of 5.9

million copies of approximately 14,700

tangible (print, microfiche, CD-ROM) titles

from all three branches of the Government

to depository libraries.

Breaking the production/distribution link in

GPO would also cost the public the

convenience of buying their own copies of

Government publications, which they

currently enjoy through GPO's sales

program. (Although the sales program is

shrinking as the result of the Internet, it still

generates annual sales of approximately $40

million; nearly 95 % of these sales are 

agency publications.) Unlike the FDLP,

there is no requirement in law for agencies

that print elsewhere than GPO to supply the

Superintendent of Documents with copies for 

the sales program. Without a system of

centralized printing as a source of supply,

the sales program would be restricted to

sales of legislative branch products,

representing about 5% of sales.

Conclusion. Mr. Chairman, GPO provides

valuable assistance to executive branch

agencies by economically managing their

printing and other information products and

ensuring that the public has comprehensive,

equitable access to Government information.

More than a century ago, Congress in its

wisdom designed a system in GPO for

achieving these important objectives. That

system continues to work well today.

Our longstanding record of achievement on

behalf of Federal agencies and the public

contrasts sharply with the potential problems

11
AN-v23-#l0-8/1/02

associated with decentralizing printing

throughout the executive branch. If

implemented, this policy could lead to

significant cost increases in Government

printing in both the legislative and executive

branches. There are likely to be other

impacts on Government printing, as well as

economic impacts on the private sector

printing industry—particularly the small

businesses that currently handle most of the

orders procured by GPO—and GPO's

workforce. Finally, there are likely to be

adverse impacts on the public's ability to

access Government information products.

In the U.S. Budget for FY 2003, 0MB says,

"at a time of national emergency, it is

critical that the [G]overnment operate

effectively and spend every taxpayer dollar

wisely" (p. 51). I agree. Now is not the

time to try implementing a printing policy

that is virtually guaranteed to cost more

while impairing public access to muchneeded Government information.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Joint

Committee on Printing, this concludes my

prepared statement, and I would be pleased

to answer any questions you may have.

GPO Services Covered by the Printing

Procurement Surcharge

Review requisitions and furnished material

for accuracy and completeness and for

opportunities for savings through options.

Provide agency cost estimates, consultation,

and advice regarding technical

specifications, scheduling, quality levels

with QATAP guidelines, and procurement

method.

Prepare specifications and solicitations.

Maintain the Automated Bid List System

(ABLS), a computerized database which is a

comprehensive list of 10,000-12,000

contractors, including the areas of their

production interest as well as a guide to

production and quality capability.

Issue Bid/Quotation/Proposal solicitations

using the ABLS and including advertisement

and public posting of opportunities. Also

issuance of solicitation material upon

request. Note: use of ABLS allows for

solicitations to be issued on a rotating basis

to contractors according to their ability to

compete for a particular requirement.

Suspend or debar firms or individuals as

appropriate after providing for due process.

Create and maintain a list of suspended or

debarred contractors or individuals.

Receive and evaluate

bids/quotations/proposals.

Award contracts to responsible contractors.

Assure awards are made on the basis of

overall low cost to the Government, taking

into account quotations, discounts, freight

and/or postal rates as applicable, and other

identifiable costs.

Determine contractor responsibility by

reviewing compliance on previous

Government work, quality performance with

respect to quality level required, other

performance history, and financial capability

as required, utilizing an on-site preaward

survey as necessary.

Review and take action on protests submitted

to GPO.

12
AN-v23-#10-8/l/02

Maintain the Quality Assurance Through

Attributes (QATAP) program, updating

QATAP contract terms to provide for new

technologies and legal changes. Note:

QATAP helps in the provision of exact,

objective specifications to assure that the

Government does not buy (and pay) in

excess of its needs.

Use of QATAP and GPO's Quality Control

and Techmeal Division for inspecting and

testing product samples for compliance with

technical specifications and quality level

requirements.

Provide for contract administration, 

including routine proof review on one-time

jobs.

Take appropriate action under QATAP to

resolve quality complaints.

Use QATAP quality performance

information in making responsibility and

termination determinations.

Provide for transportation and traffic

management considerations to assure the

most practical and economical means of

transportation.

Maintain contract compliance through proper

non-responsibility determinations and job

tracking, and take appropriate action such as

discounts or defaults for delinquent work.

Issue contract modifications covering

technical and contractual terms.

Terminate contracts for default or the

convenience of the Government, including

negotiating equitable adjustments.

Respond to disputes by examination and

evaluation of contractor’s

position/documentation and negotiating

settlement when in the best interest of the

Government or defending an appeal when

necessary and in the best interest of the

Government.

Provide due process for disputes, include

access to the GPO's Administrative Law

Judge.

Provide Inspector General services for

appropriate audits of contractor claims and

investigations.

Provide legal opinions and services through

GPO's General Counsel office in response to

agency and/or contracting officer requests.

Administer a Small Disadvantaged Business

(SDB) program to satisfy legal requirements

for the Department of Defense.

Examine, audit, and pay commercial

contractor vouchers.

Provide automated billing as well as

requested acquisition statistics by billing

address code.

Provide for Superintendent of Documents

riders to assure information products are

included in the Federal Depository Library

Program as required by law and as paid for

by funds appropriated to the GPO for this

purpose.

Assure that the Superintendent of Documents

sales and by-law distribution programs

provide public access to information

products as mandated by law.

13
AN-v23-#l0-8/1/02

Monitor compliance with laws and

regulations with respect to the use of:

vegetable oil-based inks, permanent paper,

and recycled paper.

GPO Services Not Covered by the

Surcharge

Press sheet inspection (travel, per diem, and

hours).

Proof review by the GPO Typography and

Design (T&D) Division's Technical Review

Section for quality level I and II multicolor

work, as requested by agency.

Provide typographic and graphic design

services and consultation, after an initial

interview for which there is no separate

charge.

Detail of GPO employees to customer

agencies, as requested.

14
AN-v23-#10-8/l/02

Summary, 2002 Spring Meeting

Depository Library Council

April 21-24, 2002

Mobile, AL

Sunday, April 21, 2002, Council Working

Session, 7:15 p.m.

Council Members present:

Paul Arrigo, Pennsylvania State

University, Shenango;

Daniel C. Barkley, University of New

Mexico;

Charlene C. Cain, Louisiana State

University;

Barbara J. Ford, Chicago Public Library;

Linda Fredericks, King County Library

System, Bellevue, WA;

Cathy Nelson Hartman, University of

North Texas Libraries;

Doris Small Helfer, California State

University - Northridge;

Dena Hutto, Reed College, Portland, OR;

John C. Kavaliunas, U.S. Census Bureau;

Greta E. Marlatt (Secretary), Naval

Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA;

Mary Redmond, New York State Library;

Andrea Sevetson (Chair); and

John A. Stevenson, University of

Delaware Library;

Robert A. Hinton, Indiana University -

Purdue University Indianapolis was excused

due to illness. Sharon A. Hogan, University

of Illinois at Chicago resigned from Council

in March 2002 due to illness.

Chair Andrea Sevetson welcomed everyone

and had the Council members and audience

introduce themselves. Doris Helfer is

joining Council to finish out the term of

Roberta Shaffer who resigned.

Michael F. DiMario, Public Printer

Mr. DiMario talked about the upcoming

appropriation hearings and the September 11

supplemental funds. GPO has approval for

the new Integrated Library System (ILS).

The White House has indicated its intent to

nominate Mr. Bruce James as the new

Public Printer. Mr. DiMario, various GPO

staff and Andrea Sevetson have had an

opportunity to meet with him.

Francis J. Buckley, Jr., Superintendent of

Documents

Mr. Buckley indicated funding was

requested and granted for the GPO Access

backup and mirror site. The Pueblo, CO

distribution center will be the site of the

combined backup and mirror site.

Regarding the security concerns and requests

for withdrawal of documents, the USGS

CD-ROM is the only one so far, but GPO

has asked for clarification as to what

“sensitive” means. The Office of Homeland

Security is working on this but it is unknown

when this will be available.

Committee Reports

Electronic Preservation Committee - Paul 

Arrigo reported the committee planned to

15
AN-v23-#10-8/l/02

work on three things: GPO’s response to

the need for the geographically separated

GPO Access backup, the geographic

backups for Partners and the distribution of

electronic publications. The committee

compiled a list of requirements that would

be necessary for entrance to a distribution

program and discussed the need for a letter

to go out to survey for interest before

proceeding.

• Creating a retention schedule

• Creating metadata

• Preservation of metadata

• Harvest metadata automatically

• Handling the files

• Migration issues

• Refreshing the files

• Some geographic redundancy

• Storage in environmental controlled

facility

• Must purge docs when requested by

GPO for security

• Value added materials are no longer

to be considered an official document

• Download information automatically

Operations Committee - Linda Fredericks

reported they will be looking at several

issues including the Documents Data Miner,

a request to have all libraries display the

FDLP logo on their websites, and a concern

that was expressed about downloading

information on to State level archives.

Cataloging and Locator Committee - Dena

Hutto reported on three issues. GPO is

having problems recruiting and hiring new

catalogers due to the classification level they

are required to use. The Library of Congress

hires catalogers at a higher step than GPO

has permission to. They are also looking into

PURLs for serials and the need to keep them

current. The third issue involves cataloging

the tangible products which GPO makes

available only electronically.

Communications and Information Committee

- Charlene Cain indicated they had been

asked to come up with a list of strategies for

marketing. Their ideas were delineated in a

draft letter to the Public Printer. In response

to Recommendation #5, GPO has started to

draft a marketing plan entitled “US

Government Information: Make the

Connection @ Federal Depository

Libraries.” They are also tracking the

Lieberman bill (S 803) on E-Government.

Other Reports

Permanent Public Access - John Stevenson

reported the PPA has not met so he had

nothing to report.

Chair Sevetson talked about her expectations

for members during the meeting. She also

reported on her meeting with Bruce James

and the draft letter to him regarding

depository issues. She asked the

Communications committee to review it.

Council also discussed GPO’s responses to

the Fall recommendations.

Monday, April 22, 2002, Plenary Session,

8:35 a.m.

Council Members Present

Paul Arrigo, Daniel C. Barkley, Charlene

C. Cain, Barbara J. Ford, Linda Fredericks,

Cathy Nelson Hartman, Doris Small Helfer, 

Dena Hutto, John C. Kavaliunas, Greta E.

Marlatt, Mary Redmond, Andrea Sevetson

and John A. Stevenson.

16
AN-V23-#10-8/1/02

Opening Remarks

Mr. Spencer Watts, Mobile Public Library,

welcomed everyone to the City of Mobile on

behalf of Mayor Michael C. Dowd. He

gave a brief overview of the history of the

city. Two Azalea Trail Maids also extended

welcomes.

Robin Haun-Mohamed, Chief, Depository

Services Branch, welcomed everyone and

went over logistics.

Andrea Sevetson, Council Chair, welcomed

everyone and called the meeting to order.

Robin Haun-Mohamed, Willie Thompson

and Vicki Tate were all recognized for their

efforts in making all the arrangements and

putting together the sessions. The usual

“Council Aerobics” included asking

everyone to respond by geographic areas -

oceans, mountains and rivers.

John Stevenson provided the overview of the

Sunday evening working session.

Welcome and GPO Update by the

Honorable Michael F. DiMario, Public

Printer.

Mr. DiMario expressed his pleasure at being

at the meeting and commented on the

partnership that exists between GPO and the

depository community. He noted it is an

uneven one with GPO acquiring and

distributing the publications and the library

community doing the majority of the work.

Mr. DiMario introduced Doris Helfer, who

is replacing Roberta Shaffer, and the other

new Council appointees. (See Administrative

Notes, April 15, 2002, v. 23, no. 5 -

http:I/www. access. gpo. gov/su_docs/fdlp/

pubs/adnotes/ad041502.html)

Mr. DiMario read a letter from Senator 

Mark Dayton, current Chair of the JCP.

This letter was in response to a GPO

invitation to the members of the JCP inviting

them to attend the meeting. Mr. DiMario

was also pleased to be able to announce the

approval by the JCP for the $1.9M request

to purchase an Integrated Library System

(ILS) to upgrade the current legacy system.

Mr. DiMario reminisced about his career

within the Government Printing Office that

began in 1971. He held several positions

culminating with his current one. He

announced that the White House has

indicated their intention to nominate Mr.

Bruce R. James as the next Public Printer.

He has met with Mr. James and provided

him with information and names of

individuals who would help him have a

better understanding of the Depository

Library concerns. Mr. James is very

familiar with the printing industry but not so

with the library community and is interested

in learning more about us. Mr. DiMario’s

best guess is that it will be several months

before he is confirmed and sworn in.

Mr. DiMario indicated they have not heard

anything on their request for funding.

Congress was generous to GPO with the

issuance of the supplemental appropriations

after September 11. Included in GPO’s

request for the supplemental appropriations

were the funds for a mirror site. These

funds were approved and Pueblo, CO has

been chosen as the location.

Regarding their requests for funding,

Congressman Charles Taylor (NC) is still 

the Chair of the House Appropriations

Subcommittee and he is still skeptical of

what GPO does although he has modified his

opinion somewhat in recent years. Senator

17
AN-v23-#10-8/l/02

Richard Durbin (IL) is the new Chair of the

Senate Appropriations Subcommittee and he

has expressed some concern about the Sales

Program. The great success of GPO Access

has caused significant declines in sales and

the impact of agencies producing more and

more in electronic format has also caused a

decrease in printing, further impacting GPO

revenues.

Mr. DiMario expressed his thanks for

allowing him to serve and wished everyone

well.

Mr. Francis J. Buckley, Jr.,

Superintendent of Documents

See remarks, Administrative Notes May 5,

2002, (v. 23, no. 6) -

http: //www. access. gpo. gov/su_docs/fdlp/

pubs/adnotes/ad050502. html

Gil Baldwin, Director, Library Programs

Service (LPS)

See remarks, Administrative Notes May 5,

2002, (v. 23, no. 6) -

http: //www. access. gpo. gov/su_docs/fdlp/

pubs/adnotes/ad050502.html

T.C. Evans, Director, Office of Electronic

Information Dissemination Services

(EIDS)

See remarks, Administrative Notes May 5,

2002, (v. 23, no. 6) -

http: //www. access. gpo. gov/su_docs/fdlp/

pubs/adnotes/ad050502 .html

Information Exchange

Jim Veatch, Library HQ, asked if there was

any information about the status of the

Department of the Interior Web sites due to

the lawsuit. He noted the National Park

Service was now back online.

TC Evans gave an unofficial answer that he

heard they were being allowed back on a

service or bureau basis after review, and

about half were now back. He didn’t know

what the timetable was.

Roberta Palen, Chicago Public Library,

inquired about her concern that so many of

the smaller depositories seem to be

dropping. She wanted to know if they were

giving notice or reasons for their decisions.

She wanted to know if there was any

coordination and who was going to pick up

the slack.

Andrea Sevetson responded that Council was

also aware of the problem and concerned

and would be hearing a presentation later in

the day from Claire Hoffman who has been

studying this issue.

Gil Baldwin responded that GPO rarely gets

advance warning, that usually the decision

has been made and it is a matter of

mechanics by the time they have been

notified. They would very much like more

notice. The State Planning process should

address what to do when libraries relinquish

their status.

Fran Buckley also indicated he wished they

would consult with GPO as the program can

be flexible and GPO would be happy to

consult with them.

Linda Fredericks indicated that preliminary

findings seem to indicate that they were

generally small or medium, most are public

or small liberal arts schools and some have

been in the program for 100 + years while

others are relatively recent entrants.

18
AN-v23-#10-8/l/02

Andrea Sevetson indicated that Council has

been following up and contacting those that

are dropping to see why.

Paul Arrigo asked if there have been any

new libraries added to the program.

Robin Haun-Mohamed responded with a

brief overview of the newest participants.

Paul Arrigo asked if TC Evans could give an

explanation of the PKI (Public Key

Infrastructure) security software.

TC Evans responded that it was a phased

approach since there are numerous issues.

They will be conducting a pilot with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

This will be their first foray into the actual

use of PKI signing to start the assurance

process of information that ultimately ends

up in GPO Access. There is a vetting

process as well, signing up those with the

authority to sign.

Trisha Cruse, California Digital Library,

asked if this was security for digital objects

or was it for authentication.

TC Evans responded there were several

levels. They want to make sure the proper

person is authorizing and that they are not

altered along the way. There will be a free

reader so the user can access the

information.

Julia Wallace, University of Minnesota,

commented on the issue of libraries who

were dropping. In her region, it was mostly

small libraries. She thinks there might be

more opportunities designating new libraries

as new congressional redistricting occurs.

She also feels that Regionals should be

aware enough to get wind if a library is

considering dropping though sometimes the

decision is made at the director level and no

discussions are held. She mused that GPO

Access has been a little too successful!

Andrea Sevetson asked if GPO was looking

for new topics. She suggested a listserv for

what's new and maybe something like the

table of contents for the Weekly Compilation

ofPresidential Documents or other similar

serials.

TC Evans responded that they would

welcome such suggestions (send suggestions

to gpoaccess@gpo.gov) and that they could

do a “What’s New on GPO Access.” Other

serials are a little more complicated since

they are agency documents and they are paid

to do them (e.g. Federal Register and 

National Archives Records Administration).

Julia Wallace, University of Minnesota,

asked about GPO’s New Titles by Topic

service. When a library wants to buy a copy

of a publication that we will probably not be

getting in a tangible format, we still need to

know for sure before buying that we aren’t

going to get them and that they are available

from the bookstore.

TC Evans responded that he would talk to

the relevant parties to see if something could

be arranged.

Jim Veatch, Library HQ, asked if there had 

been an increase in the usage of Ben’s Guide

since GPO began pushing it.

TC Evans indicated there have been

incremental increases along with the various

pushes. They do measure usage and it is

generally busy in conjunction with the 

school year. They are trying to work with 

the education community to see what events

19
AN-V23-#10-8/1/02

are the catalysts for sending it up one month

versus others. We are running at about

800,000-900,000 retrievals per month.

John Stevenson asked if, when an agency

asked GPO to set up a Web site, does GPO

provide a template or does the agency have a

fully formed idea.

TC Evans responded they do work with

agencies and they will do everything from

building the site from scratch to just

mounting it. There are certain “good

practices” that they try to get them to work

with and they try to make sure the design

includes fast loading.

Cathy Hartman indicated she has

conversations with GPO about migrating

from WAIS databases and would GPO

comment.

TC Evans indicated they were looking at

which databases would be available to

migrate next year.

Committee chairs gave brief overviews of

their membership and major issues.

Dena Hutto - Cataloging and Locator

Committee

Support GPO cataloging staff to be more

competitive with higher-level positions

Maintaining PURLs

Cataloging for tangible products which

GPO is only distributing electronically

Linda Fredericks - Operations Committee

Libraries leaving FDLP

Electronic periodicals and the apparent

disconnect between DAB, Web Tech

Notes, the List of Classes and the

Catalog of United States Government

Publications.

Mandate depository logos on websites

Inspections and self-studies

Superseded list

Paul Arrigo - Electronic Preservation

Electronic dissemination and the

requirements for participation in such

a program

Charlene Cain - Communications

Marketing and promotion of the program

Andrea Sevetson briefly talked about her

meeting with Bruce James and the draft

letter she gave him. This draft came from

work that Sharon Hogan had done with 

Council in Fall 2000, to develop a vision for

the Program of the Future.

Monday, April 22, 2002, Council Working

Session, 2 p.m.

Mr. Buckley distributed and explained SOD

72 (Agency Request to Withdraw

Information Products From Superintendent

of Documents Program) and GPO’s plans

for procedures for implementing SOD 72.

He indicated they previously had a

procedure but not a written policy. There

was a lively discussion about this issue as

well as the memo written by Tom Susman

regarding this issue (see “Removal or

Destruction of Federal Depository Library

Documents, ” http:I/www. arl. org/info/frn/

gov/Susman.html).

Claire Hoffman, Head Librarian at

Pennsylvania State University, Abington, 

gave Council a presentation on her research

into the many reasons libraries are leaving

the Depository Program. The data she was

able to collect covered October 1992 through 

October 2000. She gave an overview of her

findings which she plans to publish. During

20
AN-v23-#10-8/l/02

the targeted time, 104 libraries have

dropped. Some of the highlights of her

findings include:

STATE NUMBER

CA 14

DC 9

NJ 8

PA 7

NY 6

TYPE OF LIBRARY NUMBER

Public 36

Academic 30

Federal Agency 10

Community College 8

Special 7

Law (Academic) 5

Information gleaned from letters, self-studies

and inspection reports indicated many had

various problems identified during

inspections, and had been rated as

noncompliant or unsatisfactory. Other

issues included staffing problems, space

issues, money, requirements, decreased

usage, technical requirements,

reorganization (changed priorities) and the

perception that “everything is on the

Internet.”

Council members and the audience asked her

questions about her findings and there was

considerable discussion about the issue and

possible solutions.

Monday, April 22, 2002, Council Working

Session, 7-9:00p.m.

Council met and worked in small groups on

committee work.

Tuesday, April 23, 2002, Council Plenary

Session, 8:30 a.m.

Although Mr. DiMario’s acknowledgement

of the outgoing class is usually done on the

final day, because he and Mr. Buckley

needed to leave, Mr. DiMario spoke to

Council and thanked them (and the audience)

for their participation. He considers the

program to be very important and is proud

to have been a part of it for so long. He

commended the dedication of the staff and

GPO as well as the depository community

for being “true professionals.” He thanked

Council for their “due diligence” and

acknowledged the 5 outgoing members. He

asked for a moment of reflection on behalf

of Sharon Hogan who was gravely ill.

Subsequent to this meeting, Council learned

of Sharon’s death on April 27. He presented

certificates to Linda Fredericks, Mary

Redmond and Andrea Sevetson.

Chair Sevetson presented Mr. DiMario with

a small token of their appreciation for all his

efforts.

21
AN-V23-#10-8/1/02

Since the morning sessions were all very

related to the issues Council was working

on, the decision was to move the working

sessions to Monday evening and attend the

morning sessions.

Those sessions were:

Value of Participating in the FDLP: How

Depository Coordinators Can Effectively

Convey this Message to Library

Administration (a response to

Recommendation #5, Fall 2001)

• Barbara Ford, Assistant Commissioner,

Chicago Public Library and Mary

Prophet, Denison University.

Web Documents Digital Archive Pilot

Project

• George Barnum, Manager, Electronic

Collection, LPS

USGS and Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(Information dissemination policies in light

of changes since September 11, 2001)

• Tom Smith, Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

• Hedy Rossmeissl, U.S. Geological

Survey

• Sandy Schwalb, Defense Technical

Information Center

Tuesday, April 23, 2002, Council

Working Session, 2 p.m.

Committee Chairs reported on the committee

discussions regarding the recommendations

and commendations they would be

responsible for. Council then discussed the

recommended actions and made assignments

for the actual writing of them.

Tuesday, April 23, 2002, Council

Working Session, 7 p.m.

Council members wrote the various

recommendation, commendations and action

items.

Wednesday, April 24, 2002, Council

Working Session, 8:30 a.m.

Council reviewed the draft

recommendations, commendations and

action items. TC Evans gave an overview of

the prototype of the new GPO Access.

Council gave some feedback and was

favorably impressed overall.

The Freshman class opted to take Greta

Marlatt up on her offer and announced that

she would remain as Secretary for another 

year.

Cathy Hartman (incoming Chair) and

Andrea Sevetson (outgoing Chair) have

provided updated information for the

Council website and it was decided that the

Chair and Chair Elect will be the defacto

Web committee.

Committee assignments were reviewed and

updated. While some assignments were

made in advance, the incoming class will be

added in October when they are available to

indicate their preferences. The assignments

are as follows:

Electronic Preservation

Paul Arrigo (Chair)

Dan Barkley

Greta Marlatt

John Stevenson

22
AN-v23-#10-8/l/02

Cataloging

Dena Hutto (Chair)

Paul Arrigo

Doris Helfer

John Stevenson

Communications

Charlene Cain (Chair)

Dena Hutto

Barbara Ford

John Kavaliunas

Operations

Dan Barkley (Chair)

Charlene Cain

Greta Marlatt

Michelle McKnelly

John Phillips

Mary Prophet

Wednesday, April 24, 2002, Plenary

Session, 11:45 a.m.

Chair Sevetson made her closing remarks.

She thanked Robin Haun-Mohamed for all

her hard work and excellent programs and

Willie Thompson for all his behind the

scenes work. She also thanked Greta

Marlatt for being secretary and announced

she had graciously agreed to do it again next

year.

Council read their recommendations,

commendations and action items.

Chair Sevetson opened the floor up to the

audience for questions and comments.

John Phillips, Oklahoma State University, 

indicated that the Regionals had met and

they share some of the similar concerns

about libraries leaving the program. They

would send their list of recommendations to

GPO.

Dan Barkley asked that the list be

transmitted to Council as well.

George Carlson, Santa Clara University,

asked about Recommendation no. 7, 

Retention and Recruitment of GPO 

Catalogers. He was concerned that it talked

about online but didn’t really mention

tangible items.

Dena Hutto responded that the

recommendation had been structured to

address concerns that it not specify

cataloging of only tangible items but others

as well.

Chris Brown, University of Denver, had a

question about Recommendation no. 8,

Integrated Library System. He was

concerned about the wording “own the

source code” as he felt there might a

problem.

Dan Barkley responded that he thinks GPO 

does need to own the source code and the

most vendors are unlikely to have a

problem. Making changes is very

expensive.

Steve Sexton, Georgia Southern University,

suggested that Recommendation no. 8 would

work better if the wording were changed

around.

Andrea Sevetson encouraged the audience to

send other comments to Council. She

thanked Vicki Tate for making local 

arrangements.

She thanked Mary Redmond and Linda

Fredericks for their- efforts as part of her

class and presented them with small gifts.

She also thanked Council for their hard work

23
AN-V23-#10-8/1/02

and good humor before turning the gavel

over to Cathy Hartman.

On behalf of GPO, Gil Baldwin thanked the 

outgoing class for all their work and

participation. He also thanked the rest of

Council for a very productive meeting and

the audience for their participation.

Cathy Hartman thanked Robin HaunMohamed and Willie Thompson for the

great sessions and all their help. She

expressed her appreciation to the Senior

class and especially Chair Sevetson for 

including her in many things throughout the

year so that she would be well equipped to

take over as Chair. Both Chairs gave out

gifts.

Meeting adjourned at 12:25 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Greta E. Marlatt

Council Secretary

2002 Spring Council Presentations on

GPO Access

http: //www. access. gpo. gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/proceedings/02spc.html

1. Security, State Plans, Promotion, and Sales

Francis J. Buckley, Jr., Superintendent of Documents

2. This is What the Future Looks Like

Gil Baldwin, Director, Library Programs Service

3. Current and Future State of GPO Access

T.C. Evans, Director, Office of Electronic Information Dissemination Services

4. Effective Searching Strategies for the Catalog of Government Publications (CGP)

Thomas A. Downing, LPS

5. Value of Participating in the FDLP: How Depository Coordinators Can Effectively Convey

this Message to Library Administration (a response to Recommendation #5, Fall 2001)

Barbara Ford, Assistant Commissioner, Chicago Public Library

Barbara Ford, Assistant Commissioner, Chicago Public Library

6. Documents of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .Information Dissemination in the

Post-9/11/01 Environment

Tom Smith, Nuclear Regulatory Commission

24
AN-v23-#10-8/l/02

7. Value of Participating in the FDLP: How Depository Coordinators Can Effectively Convey

This Message

Mary Prophet, Deputy Director Denison University Libraries

8. Discussion SectionInspections and Addition of Peer Experts to Accompany Inspectors for

On-Site Library Inspections

Robin Haun-Mohamed, Chief, Depository Services Staff, LPS

9. E-COMPETENCIES for Federal Depository Libraries & Librarians

Eric Forte, GITCO Chair, forte@library.ucsb.edu

10. Bibliographic Instruction, Government Documents & You: How to Incorporate Documents

Into Your Library Instruction

Kirsten Clark, St. John’s University

Supplement: Web sites used in presentation

11. Access and the Federal Depository Libraries

Robin Haun-Mohamed, Chief, Depository Services Staff, LPS

12. URLS and PURLs in Online Public Access Catalogs & Web Pages

Christopher Brown, University of Denver

13. Using Online Processing Tools

John Stevenson, University of Delaware

Kirsten Clark, St. John’s University

Elaine Winske, Florida International University

25
AN-v23-#10-8/l/02

Table of Contents

Public Printer Statement: Joint Committee on Printing.............................................................

Summary, 2002 Spring Council Meeting..................................................................................1

2002 Spring Council Presentations on GPO Access................................................................ 2

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, SLLD

Washington, DC 20401

Internet access at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/adnotes/index.html

Editor: Marian W. MacGilvray (202) 512-1119 mmacgilvray@gpo.gov

26